YALE 
HISTORICAL  PUBLICATIONS 

STUDIES 
.      II 

PUBLISHED  UNDER  THE  DIRECTION  OF  THE 
DEPARTMENT  OF  HISTORY 

FROM  THE  INCOME  OF 

THE  FREDERICK  JOHN  KINGSBURY 

MEMORIAL  FUND 


STUDIES    IN   TAXATION 

UNDER 
JOHN  AND  HENRY  III 


BY 

SYDNEY  KNOX  MITCHELL,  PH.D. 

Assistant  Professor  of  History 
in  Yale  College 


NEW  HAVEN:  YALE  UNIVERSITY  PRESS 

LONDON:   HUMPHREY  MILFORD 

OXFORD  UNIVERSITY  PRESS 

MDCCCCXIV 


M5 


COPYRIGHT,  1914,  BY 
YALE  UNIVERSITY  PRESS 


Printed  from  type,  400  copies,  June,  1914 


TO  MY  MOTHER 


PREFACE 

THE  following  studies  on  taxation  were  originally 
written  several  years  ago  to  fulfil  in  part  the 
requirements  for  the  degree  of  doctor  of  philosophy  at 
Yale  University.  Since  that  time  they  have  been 
rewritten  and  material  taken  from  manuscript  sources 
has  been  added.  My  plan  has  been  to  give  as  complete 
an  account  as  possible  of  each  tax  levied  during  the 
reigns  of  John  and  Henry  III,  presenting  all  the  material 
in  print  and  as  much  from  the  unprinted  rolls  as  could 
be  gathered  within  a  limited  time.  A  more  careful  study 
of  the  unprinted  exchequer  rolls  will  undoubtedly  modify 
many  of  the  statements  made  here,  but  until  that  study 
has  been  completed,  or  until  the  rolls  have  been  printed 
and  put  into  the  hands  of  students  of  English  history, 
this  essay  may  be  of  service. 

In  common  with  other  students,  I  have  enjoyed  the 
privileges  of  the  Public  Record  Office,  meeting  always 
with  unfailing  courtesy  on  the  part  of  the  officials  who 
often  aided  me  in  reading  difficult  passages  in  the  manu- 
script. To  the  officials  of  the  Yale  University  Library 
also  I  am  grateful  for  generous  consideration  in  the  use 
of  books.  For  assistance  in  preparing  the  volume  for 
the  press,  I  am  indebted  to  Professor  Charles  M.  Andrews, 
who  has  read  both  the  manuscript  and  the  proof  and 
made  suggestions  and  corrections  from  which  I  have 
profited  much.  Above  all,  I  wish  to  acknowledge  my 
obligation  to  Professor  George  Burton  Adams,  at  whose 
suggestion  these  studies  were  undertaken.  He  has  at  all 
times  placed  freely  at  my  disposal  his  wide  and  accurate 


vn 


PREFACE 

knowledge  of  the  period,  and  at  the  cost  of  time  taken 
from  his  own  researches  has  read  and  criticised  the  work 
with  unwearied  care  and  kindness.  Lastly,  I  record  with 
gratitude  the  cooperation  of  my  wife,  whose  constant  aid 
in  collecting  the  material  and  in  preparing  it  for 
publication  has  been  of  the  greatest  service. 

S.  K.  M. 


Vlll 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS 


CHAPTER  I 

INTRODUCTION 

PAGE 

Analysis  of  the  royal  income  at  the  close  of  the  twelfth 
century — The  ordinary  revenue — The  extraordinary 
revenue — Insufficient  amount  of  the  ordinary  in- 
come— Inquests  of  1166 — Number  of  knights'  fees 
in  England — Scutage  in  the  twelfth  century — Taxes 
on  property  before  John — Subjects  treated  in  the 
studies  of  this  book — General  statement  concerning 
each  of  the  following  in  the  thirteenth  century: 
dona  from  religious  bodies,  tallage,  scutage  and 
military  service,  aids — Amount  of  the  ordinary 
income  under  John  1 


CHAPTER  II 
THE  TAXES  IN  DETAIL  FROM  1199  TO  1206 

General  statement  of  the  matter  contained  in  the 
chapter — The  taxes  of  1199,  military  service, 
scutage  and  fines,  tallage,  dona  from  religious 
houses — The  carucage  of  1200,  occasion,  composition 
allowed,  opposition  to  the  tax,  assessment — The 
taxes  of  1201,  military  service,  scutage  and  fines, 
tallage,  aid  on  men  of  the  Channel  Isles,  the 
fortieth  for  the  crusade — The  taxes  of  1202,  military 
service,  scutage  and  fines — The  taxes  of  1203, 
military  service,  scutage  and  fines,  tallage,  dona 

ix 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS 

from  religious  houses,  the  seventh  of  personal 
property,  pretext  for  its  levy,  when  levied,  by  whom 
paid,  method  of  assessment,  significance  of  the  levy, 
the  fifth  of  revenues  in  the  Channel  Isles — The 
taxes  of  1204,  military  service,  scutage  and  fines, 
dona  from  religious  houses,  tallage,  fifteenth  of  the 
property  of  merchants,  amount  yielded,  method  of 
assessment  and  collection — The  taxes  of  1205,  mili- 
tary service,  scutage  and  fines,  tallage — The  taxes 
of  1206,  military  service,  scutage  and  fines,  tallage  .  17 


CHAPTER    III 
THE  THIRTEENTH  OF  1207 

Summary  of  the  matter  in  the  chapter — Grant  of  the 
tax  by  the  great  council — Men  taxed — Composition 
allowed — Taxation  of  the  royal  demesne — Assess- 
ment and  collection — Amount  yielded — Significance 
of  the  levy  .........  M 

CHAPTER  IV 
THE  TAXES  IN  DETAIL  FROM  1208  TO  1216 

Summary  of  the  matter  contained  in  the  chapter — The 
expedition  against  the  Scots,  military  service,  levy 
of  scutage — The  expedition  to  Ireland,  military 
service,  levy  of  scutage,  fines,  tallage — The  expedi- 
tion to  Wales,  military  service,  levy  of  scutage — 
Development  of  the  account  of  scutage  rendered  in 
the  Pipe  Roll — Taxation  of  religious  houses  and 
the  Jews — Royal  income  from  church  lands  during 
the  interdict — Partial  service  rendered  by  tenants 
in  1213 — The  taxes  of  1214,  military  service,  levy 
of  scutage,  tallage  .  .  .  .  .  .93 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS 

CHAPTER  V 
THE  TAXES  IN  DETAIL  FROM  1216  TO  1229 

Summary  of  material  in  the  chapter — The  twentieth  of 
1216 — The  taxes  of  1217,  fines  during  the  civil 
war,  carucage,  indemnity  in  connection  with  the 
peace  of  1217,  methods  of  raising  money,  aid  on 
the  knight's  fee,  tallage,  contribution  from  Ireland — 
The  carucage  of  1220 — The  Biham  campaign,  levy 
of  scutage — The  poll  tax  of  1222 — The  Welsh 
expedition  of  1223,  levy  of  scutage,  tallage — The 
taxes  of  1224,  the  Bedford  campaign,  levy  of  scu- 
tage, carucage  of  the  clergy — The  fifteenth  of  1225, 
a  grant  by  the  great  council,  classes  taxed,  assess- 
ment and  collection — The  receipts  from  the  fif- 
teenth— The  sixteenth  of  1226,  assessment  and 
collection — The  tallage  of  1226,  connection  with 
the  confirmation  of  charters — The  Welsh  campaign 
of  1228,  levy  of  scutage — The  papal  tenth  of  1229, 
occasion,  assessment  and  collection  .  .  .119 

CHAPTER  VI 
THE  TAXES  IN  DETAIL  FROM  1229  TO  1242 

Summary  of  the  matter  contained  in  the  chapter — The 
expedition  to  Gascony,  two  scutages  levied,  the 
scutage  of  Brittany,  grant  of  aid  by  the  bishops 
instead  of  scutage,  dona  from  religious  houses, 
tallage,  taxation  of  the  Jews,  the  scutage  of  Poitou, 
opposition  of  the  clergy — The  expedition  to  Wales 
in  1231,  levy  of  the  scutage  of  Elveyn — The  fortieth, 
1232,  occasion,  grant  by  the  great  council,  classes 
which  paid  the  aid,  assessment  and  collection, 
amount  yielded,  points  of  difference  between  the 
fifteenth  and  the  fortieth — The  campaign  against 
Richard  Marshal  in  1233,  no  scutage  levied — The 

xi 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS 

tallage  of  1234 — The  aid  of  1235,  occasion,  granted 
by  the  great  council,  assessment  and  collection, 
inquest  into  knights'  fees,  dona  from  religious 
houses,  taxation  of  sergeants,  tallage — The  thirtieth 
of  1237,  occasion,  grant  by  the  great  council,  classes 
taxed,  assessment  and  collection,  the  receipts, 
tallage  of  the  Jews,  contribution  from  Ireland — 
Tallage  of  1238 — Tallage  of  the  Jews  in  1241— 
Expedition  to  Wales  in  1241,  tallage,  roll  of  reduced 
servitium  debit um  .  .  .  .  .  .179 

CHAPTER  VII 
THE  TAXES  IN  DETAIL  FROM  1242  TO  1253 

Summary  of  the  matter  in  the  chapter — The  taxation 
of  1242,  the  expedition  to  France,  levy  of  scutage 
and  fines,  assessment  and  collection,  inquest  into 
military  service,  aid  from  the  bishops  instead  of 
scutage,  dona  from  religious  houses,  other  contri- 
butions, cost  of  the  expedition — The  Scottish  cam- 
paign— The  aid  of  1245,  grant  by  the  great  council, 
assessment  and  collection,  dona  from  religious 
houses — The  expedition  to  Wales,  levy  of  scutage 
and  fines,  tallage — Royal  devices  to  raise  money 
from  1246  to  1253 222 

CHAPTER  VIII 
THE  TAXES  IN  DETAIL  FROM  1253  TO  1258 

Summary  of  the  matter  contained  in  the  chapter — The 
expedition  to  Gascony  of  1253,  fines,  dona,  aid  from 
the  towns,  the  aid  to  knight  the  king's  son,  assess- 
ment, expenses  of  the  king  in  Gascony,  further  royal 
requests  for  men  and  money  against  the  king  of 
Castile — The  tenth  of  the  clergy,  cases  of  papal 
taxation  of  the  clergy  after  1229,  grant  of  the  tenth 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS 

in  1253,  assessment  and  collection,  the  receipts, 
poverty  of  the  royal  exchequer — The  tallage  of 
1255 — Welsh  campaign  of  1257,  levy  of  scutage  .  252 

CHAPTER  IX 
THE  END  OF  THE  REIGN 

Summary  of  the  matter  in  the  chapter — Tallage  of 
1260 — Papal  taxation  of  the  clergy  in  1262 — Tenth 
of  the  clergy  in  1264 — Fines  in  1265 — The  tenth 
of  three  years  in  1266,  occasion,  grant  by  the  prel- 
ates, assessment  and  collection — Tallage  of  1268 — 
Twentieth  of  the  clergy  in  1268 — Twentieth  of 
1269,  its  grant,  assessment  and  collection,  receipts  .  288 

CHAPTER  X 
SUMMARY 

Subject  of  the  chapter — Military  service  under  John 
and  Henry  III — Commutation  for  service  in 
fines  and  scutages — Tallage — Dona  from  religious 
bodies — The  king's  income — Origin  of  modern 
taxation  was  the  gracious  aid;  its  three  forms — 
Aid  on  the  knight's  fee — Carucage  and  taxation 
on  moveables — The  great  council  under  John  and 
Henry  III — Composition  and  authority  of  the 
council — Conclusion  .  300 


ABBREVIATIONS 

A.  H.  R. — American  Historical  Review. 

E.  H.  R. — English  Historical  Review. 

Rot.  Litt.  Glaus.,  I,  II — Rotuli  Litterarum  Clausarum,  Record 
Commission,  vols.  I,  II. 

Close  Rolls,  I,  II,  III,  IV— Close  Rolls,  1227-1231,  1231- 
1234,  1234-1237,  1237-1242. 

Rot.  Litt.  Pat. — Rotuli  Litterarum  Patentium,  Record  Com- 
mission. 

Pat.  Rolls,  I,  II— Patent  Rolls,  1216-1225,  1225-1232. 

Cal.  Pat.  Rolls,  I,  II,  III,  IV— Calendar  of  Patent  Rolls, 
1232-1247,  1247-1258,  1258-1266,  1266-1272. 

Select  Charters — Stubbs,  Select  Charters,  8th  ed. 


CHAPTER  I 

INTRODUCTION 

FTHHE  king's  revenue  at  the  close  of  the  twelfth  century 
•••  may  be  classed  as  ordinary  and  extraordinary. 
By  the  ordinary  revenue  is  meant  that  which  came  into 
the  exchequer  every  year  through  the  ordinary  adminis- 
tration of  the  government.  It  was  made  up  of  several 
items,  the  chief  of  which  were:  the  county  farm,  a  fixed 
sum  paid  by  the  sheriff  for  the  privilege  of  farming  the 
revenue  of  the  royal  demesne  and  the  fines  of  the  local 
courts;  amercements  imposed  by  the  king's  justices  for 
violations  of  the  law;  the  firma  burgi,  a  lump  sum  paid 
by  certain  towns  for  the  privilege  of  farming  the  town 
revenues ;  the  income  from  the  feudal  incidents,  reliefs, 
marriages,  wardships,  escheats,  etc. ;  fines  or  oblations, 
payments  to  the  king  for  such  privileges  as  the  permis- 
sion to  marry  a  certain  person,  the  custody  of  the  lands 
of  minors,  the  bringing  of  cases  into  the  king's  court, 
the  delaying  or  expediting  a  trial,  and  the  grant  and 
confirmation  of  charters.1  With  the  income  derived 
mainly  from  these  sources,  the  king  had  to  carry  on  his 
government  in  ordinary  times.  In  a  general  way,  he 
probably  knew  the  amount. 

Besides  the  ordinary  revenue,  which  did  not  always 
suffice  for  his  needs,  the  king  obtained  in  certain  unusual 
cases  an  additional  contribution,  the  extraordinary 
revenue.  This  revenue  consisted  of:  1,  the  three  regular 
feudal  aids ;  2,  scutage  from  those  military  tenants  who 

i  The  fines  would  include  many  of  the  cases  under  the  head  of  the 
feudal  incidents. 


STUDIES  IN  TAXATION 

failed  to  perform  their  service  in  the  army  in  time  of 
war;  3,  an  extra  contribution  called  tallage,  occasionally 
levied  on  his  demesne;  4,  sums  called  dona,  or  auxilia, 
taken  less  often  from  Jews,  moneyers,  prelates,  and  reli- 
gious houses.2  None  of  these  contributions  would  be 
taken  to  raise  money  for  the  ordinary  expenses  of  the 
government.  There  was  no  assessment  of  property.  In 
the  case  of  the  scutage,  an  attempt  was  made  to  propor- 
tion it  to  the  size  of  the  tenant's  holding.  It  was  paid  at 
a  fixed  rate  per  fee  for  those  fees  from  which  service  was 
owed  to  the  king.  The  tallage  varied  in  amount  from 
one  levy  to  another.3  The  dona  on  religious  houses, 
Jews,  etc.,  were  set  at  round  sums.  These  levies  (except 
the  scutage)  were  arbitrarily  exacted  by  the  king.  The 
money  was  collected  in  different  ways.  The  great  lords 
responded  personally  for  their  contributions.  The  sheriff 
might  assess  the  lesser  tenants  of  the  king.  The  tallages 
were  usually  assessed  by  the  itinerant  justices ;  the  money 
might  be  collected  by  the  sheriff,  but  sometimes  the 
towns  paid  it  directly  into  the  exchequer. 

In  the  twelfth  century  the  customary  income  from  all 
sources  was  already  becoming  insufficient.  This  was  due 
in  part  to  the  great  development  of  the  machinery  of  the 
government  which  took  place  in  Henry  II's  reign ;  in  part 
to  the  numerous  foreign  wars,  the  heavy  expenses  of  the 
crusade  and  of  Richard's  ransom,  and  careless  adminis- 
tration. A  rise  in  prices  was  going  on,  probably  slowly, 
from  about  1190  to  1250.4  It  is  likely  that  this  increased 
the  difficulties  of  the  government  somewhat.  The 
machinery  for  collecting  the  income  was  inefficient.  It 

2  Baldwin,  The  Scutage  and  Knight  Service  in  England,  pp.  21,  22, 
31,  39. 

a  In  1156,  London  paid  £120;  in  1159,  £1043.  York  paid  £40  in 
1156,  £650  in  1162,  and  £200  in  1165.  The  variation  is  not  usually 
so  great  (Baldwin,  pp.  24,  25,  27). 

*  Ramsay,  Dawn  of  the  Constitution,  p.  301. 


UNDER  JOHN  AND  HENRY  III 

was  impossible  for  the  exchequer  to  compel  the  prompt 
payment  of  dues.  The  rolls  are  full  of  debts  which  have 
run  on  for  years.  Instead  of  insisting  on  the  payment 
of  the  full  sum  as  a  government  would  do  to-day,  arrange- 
ments were  often  made  with  a  debtor  to  pay  a  certain 
amount  each  year  till  the  debt  was  discharged.5  A  con- 
siderable part  of  the  revenue  was  thus  continually  in 
arrears. 

The  government  was  accordingly  forced  to  devise  means 
to  increase  the  national  income.  This  seems  to  have  been 
the  purpose  of  the  inquest  of  knights'  fees  of  1166.  The 
military  service  owed  by  tenants  to  the  king  had  been 
fixed  at  some  time  after  the  conquest;  it  corresponded 
only  very  roughly  to  the  amount  of  land  held  by  each 
vassal.  While  a  few  tenants  had  enfeoffed  exactly  the 
number  of  knights  whose  service  they  owed  the  king,  some 
had  enfeoffed  more,  and  others  fewer.  The  inquest  asked 
each  tenant  in  chief:  1,  for  how  many  knights  he  owed 
service  to  the  king  (this  was  the  servitium  debitum)  ; 
2,  how  many  knights  had  been  enfeoffed  before  the  death 
of  Henry  I  (this  was  the  old  enfeoffment)  ;  3,  how  many 
had  been  enfeoffed  since  (this  was  the  new  enfeoffment). 
Whenever  the  number  of  knights  enfeoffed,  both  new  and 
old,  exceeded  the  servitium  debitum,  the  king  considered 
this  as  the  servitium  of  the  holding  and  collected  scutage 
on  it.  If,  however,  the  number  of  knights  enfeoffed  fell 
short  of  the  old  servitium,  the  latter  remained  as  the 
servitium  debitum  of  the  holding.6  This  attempt  to 

*E.g.  Walter  de  Lacy  owed  £933  6s  8d.  He  paid  £113  6s  8d  and 
thereafter  was  to  pay  200  marks  yearly  (Rotulua  Cancellarii,  3  John, 
p.  108). 

• In  the  case  of  a  churchman,  the  servitium  debitum  is  usually 
referred  to  as  the  knights  "quos  recognoscit,"  and  the  excess  charged 
against  them  as  the  knights  "quos  non  recognoscit."  On  the  subject 
of  the  service  owed  by  the  tenants  in  chief  originally  and  the  changes 
introduced  by  Henry  II,  see  Round,  Feudal  England,  pp.  225-314, 
and  Baldwin,  pp.  33-39. 


STUDIES  IN  TAXATION 

increase  the  knights'  service  owed  to  the  king,  and  conse- 
quently the  scutage,  was  not  entirely  successful.7 

The  number  of  fees  of  the  servitium  debitum  is  esti- 
mated by  Round  at  about  5,000.8  The  number  does  not 
seem  too  small.  The  aid  of  1168  amounted  to  about 
6,000  marks.9  As  the  rate  was  one  mark  per  fee,  the 
number  of  fees  would  be  about  6,000,  but  the  account  is 
incomplete  and  includes  fees  of  the  new  enfeoffment.  No 
attempt  has  been  made  in  this  essay  to  ascertain  the  total 
servitium  debitum  of  England.  It  has  been  shown  below 
that  the  number  of  fees  in  the  kingdom  which  might  pay 
scutage  in  the  thirteenth  century  approached  7,000.10 
This  number  is  larger  than  the  old  servitium  debitum,  for 
the  custom  seems  to  have  been  to  collect  scutage  on  the 
old  enfeoffment  when  that  was  larger  than  the  servitium 
debitum  and  from  the  old  servitium  when  that  in  turn 
exceeded  the  old  enfeoffment.11  The  new  enfeoffment  was 
not  taxed,  except  in  the  case  of  honors  in  hand  when  all 
the  fees  enfeoffed  were  taxed.  The  calculations  which  are 
given  below  of  the  number  of  fees  which  paid  scutage  and 
those  which  were  exempt  on  account  of  service  are  based 
not  on  the  servitium  debitum,  but  on  the  number  which 
might  pay  scutage.  Such  calculations  will  not  vitiate  the 
correctness  of  the  proportion  existing  between  the  part 
taxed  and  the  part  exempt,  for  an  excess  over  the  servi- 
tium debitum  in  the  fees  taxed  will  be  balanced  by  a  similar 
excess  in  the  fees  exempt. 

During  the  reign  of  Henry  II,  the  scutage  was  the 
commutation  of  service  with  the  host.  Early  in  the  reign, 
the  rate  had  risen  to  two  marks  per  fee  (1m  =  13s  4d,  or 
two-thirds  of  a  pound),  though  after  1161,  the  customary 

7  Baldwin,  pp.  43,  67. 

8  Round,  Feudal  England,  p.  292. 
•  Baldwin,  p.  39. 

10  See  below,  p.  302.     • 

11  See  below,  p.  301. 


UNDER  JOHN  AND  HENRY  III 

rate  was  twenty  shillings  or  less.12  But  the  wages  of  the 
knight  had  increased  and  twenty  shillings  was  not  enough 
to  enable  the  king  to  hire  a  substitute  for  the  tenant 
whose  service  was  thus  commuted  into  money.18  For  this 
reason,  apparently,  the  effort  was  made  to  obtain  from 
the  tenants  who  did  not  wish  to  take  part  in  a  campaign 
a  larger  sum  which  would  more  nearly  equal  the  real  value 
of  the  tenant's  service.  The  practice  is  found  in  Richard's 
reign,  if  not  earlier.  The  sums  were  called  fines  ne  trans- 
fretent  or  pro  passagio.1*  They  were  larger  than  the 
scutage  would  have  been,  were  taken  in  place  of  it,  and 
were  not  at  a  fixed  rate  per  fee.  In  return,  the  tenant  in 
chief  was  allowed  to  absent  himself  from  the  campaign 
and  collect  scutage  from  his  tenants  and  thus  partly 
recoup  himself. 

Besides  these  purely  feudal  devices  for  increasing  the 
revenue,  there  were,  just  before  the  accession  of  John, 
some  levies  of  an  entirely  different  nature.  They  began 
the  transition  from  feudal  to  modern  taxation  for  they 
were  based  on  property,  not  tenure,  and  they  employed 
new  machinery,15  the  local  bodies  (the  county,  the  hun- 
dred, and  the  vill),  to  assist  the  royal  officials  who  repre- 
sented the  central  government,  to  assess  and  collect  the 
tax.  The  new  taxes  finally  supplanted  most  of  the  feudal 
taxes  because  they  yielded  more  money.  The  first  case 

12  In  1162,  1165,  and  1168,  one  mark;  in  1172  and  1187,  20s;  in 
1190,  10s;  the  scutages  of  Richard  were  at  20s. 

is  In  Richard's  reign  a  knight  might  receive  Is  a  day  ( William 
Salt  Archceological  Society  Collections,  II,  54);  in  1199,  knights  in 
castles  in  Devon  received  the  same  (Pipe  Roll,  1  John,  m.  17  d).  In 
1198  the  abbot  of  St.  Edmunds  paid  knights  for  service  in  Normandy 
3s  a  day  (Chronica,  Joceline  de  Brakelond,  p.  63). 

i*  "de  hiis  qui  finem  fecerunt  pro  passagio";  "habet  quietantiam 
de  scutagio  suo  per  finem  quern  fecit  cum  rege";  "isti  finem  fecerunt 
pro  passagio"  (Red  Book  of  the  Exchequer,  Rolls  Series,  I,  102,  106, 
note,  115). 

is  That  is,  new  in  assessing  and  collecting  taxes. 


STUDIES  IN  TAXATION 

was  not  a  levy  for  national  purposes.  In  1166,  a  tax  of 
six  pence  in  every  pound's  worth  of  personal  property 
was  taken  for  the  relief  of  the  Holy  Land.16  In  1188,  an 
important  step  was  taken  introducing  a  modern  idea  of 
taxation.  A  tenth  of  personal  property  (except  arms, 
horses,  dress,  and  precious  stones)  was  levied  for  the 
crusade.  The  assessment  was  made  by  parishes.  In  each, 
two  churchmen  of  the  parish,  a  Templar,  a  Hospitaller, 
a  sergeant  and  a  clerk  of  the  king,  a  sergeant  and  a  clerk 
of  the  baron  of  the  parish,  and  a  clerk  of  the  bishop  of 
the  diocese  formed  the  body  of  assessors.  Each  man 
swore  to  the  value  of  his  revenues  and  personal  property 
before  this  commission.  If  it  was  believed  that  anyone 
had  sworn  falsely,  the  value  of  his  property  was  fixed  by 
a  jury  of  four  or  six  men  of  the  parish.  Crusaders  were 
exempt  and  also  received  the  tithes  of  their  men.  Those 
who  tried  to  evade  the  tax  were  excommunicated.17 
Though  the  purpose  of  this  levy  was  religious,  it  was  a 
national  tax,  and  what  is  more  significant,  it  suggested 
to  the  king  the  source  from  which  an  increased  revenue 
could  be  drawn  and  indicated  the  machinery  of  assess- 
ment. That  this  suggestion  did  not  pass  unnoticed  is 
shown  by  the  fact  that  when  in  1193-1194  it  was  necessary 
to  raise  100,000  marks  for  Richard's  ransom,  the  same 
kind  of  a  tax  was  levied,  amounting  on  this  occasion  to  a 
fourth  of  revenues  and  moveables.18  The  amount  raised 

i«  Two  pence  in  each  pound  the  first  year  and  then  a  penny  in  the 
pound  for  four  successive  years,  making  six  pence  in  all;  those  whose 
property  was  less  than  a  pound  should  pay  a  penny  (Gervase  of 
Canterbury,  I,  198) ;  Chronica  Roberti  de  Toreigni,  in  Chronicles  of 
the  Reigns  of  Stephen,  Henry  II  and  Richard  I,  Rolls  Series,  ed. 
Richard  Hewlett,  IV,  227;  Pipe  Roll,  13  Henry  II,  p.  194;  A. 
Cartellieri,  Philipp  II,  August,  Vol.  I. 

"Benedict  of  Peterborough,  ed.  Stubbs,  Rolls  Series,  II,  31; 
Stubbs,  Select  Charters,  ed.  1895,  p.  160;  Cartellieri,  Vol.  II. 

is  Roger  of  Hoveden,  ed.  Stubbs,  Rolls  Series,  III,  225;  the  total 
ransom  was  £100,000. 


UNDER  JOHN  AND  HENRY  III 

was  insufficient  and  this  was  said  to  be  due  to  the  pecula- 
tion of  the  collectors.  No  special  machinery  was  employed 
and  there  may  not  have  been  a  careful  assessment,  a  fact 
which  may  account  for  the  failure  to  obtain  a  larger 
sum.19 

Another  new  expedient  for  taxing  property  was  the 
hidage  or  carucage.  The  first  example  of  this  was  in 
connection  with  Richard's  ransom.  It  was  a  tax  on  the 
hides  or  carucates  of  the  Domesday  assessment20  and  was 
called  a  hidage  in  the  accounts  which  we  have,  but  as  hide 
and  carucate  were  names  for  the  same  thing  in  different 
parts  of  England,  hidage  and  carucage  were  the  same 
tax.  The  next  levy  was  the  carucage  of  1198,  which  was 
taken  to  supply  money  for  the  war  in  France.21  The  tax 
met  with  opposition,  for  the  religious  houses  refused  to 
pay  it,  and  in  consequence  the  king  took  from  them  the 
protection  of  the  courts.  By  this  act  their  position  was 
rendered  so  unbearable  that  they  had  to  buy  back  the 
royal  protection  and  thus  furnish  the  king  with  the 
desired  contribution.22  The  taxable  unit  was  the  plough- 
land  or  carucate  of  100  acres.23  A  new  assessment  was 
made  which  should  be  noticed,  for,  with  some  variation,  it 
was  that  which  was  employed  in  the  new  taxes  of  the 
thirteenth  century.  Two  commissioners,  a  knight  and  a 
clerk,  were  sent  into  each  county.  Probably  the  sheriff 
summoned  the  county  court  to  meet  them  and  then  two 
knights  were  chosen  from  each  hundred.  Before  this 
body  of  four,  the  reeve  and  four  men  of  each  vill  and  the 
bailiffs  of  barons  holding  lands  in  that  vill  made  oath  to 
the  number  of  carucates  in  the  vill.  Four  rolls  of  the 

is  Baldwin,  pp.  68,  70. 

20  Ibid.;  Hov.,  Ill,  240. 

21  Hov.}  IV,  46,  47. 

22  Ibid.,  IV,  66.     On  the  carucage  of  1198,  see  Round,  E.  H.  R., 
Ill,  501. 

23  That  is,  100  long  acres  or  120  acres. 


STUDIES  IN  TAXATION 

vill  were  drawn  up :  one  each  for  the  clerk,  the  knight,  and 
the  sheriff,  and  one  for  the  bailiff,  containing  an  account 
of  the  lands  of  his  lord.  The  money  was  to  be  collected 
by  the  two  elected  knights  and  the  bailiff  of  each  hundred, 
who  paid  it  to  the  sheriff,  and  he  delivered  it  at  the 
exchequer  with  the  rolls.24  It  is  doubtful  whether  this 
assessment  was  fully  carried  out.  Later  in  the  year,  the 
itinerant  justices  were  ordered  to  inquire  how  far  the 
assessment  and  collection  had  been  made.25  Many  counties 
fined  for  their  carucage  in  lump  sums,  the  amount 
charged  against  twenty- three  counties  being  1,516 
marks.26  At  this  rate,  the  total  sum  realised  from  Eng- 

2*  Hov.,  IV,  46. 

25  Ibid.,  62. 

2«  Accounts  of  a  carucage  appear  in  twenty  counties  in  the  Pipe 
Roll  of  1199  and  of  three  counties  (York,  Warwick,  and  Leicester) 
in  1200.  In  eighteen  of  these  the  county  paid  a  lump  sum;  in  four, 
round  sums  were  charged  against  the  hundreds  and  in  Wilts,  one 
vill  was  charged  with  £10.  These  probably  did  not  belong  to  the 
carucage  of  1200  levied  by  John,  for  in  some  cases  it  is  stated  that 
they  belonged  to  the  carucage  of  Richard's  time:  "pro  quietantia 
ne  fiat  inquisitio  de  carrucagio  posito  tempo  re  regis  Ricardi"  (Pipe 
Roll,  1  John,  m.  3  d).  They  can  hardly  refer  to  the  carucage  of 
1194;  in  every  case,  the  amount  charged  was  a  round  sum;  it  was 
plainly  the  first  proffer  at  the  exchequer.  It  seems  reasonable, 
therefore,  to  assign  these  sums  to  the  levy  of  1198.  The  entries 
follow:  Rutland,  20m  "de  fine  comitatus  pro  carrucagio";  Gloucester- 
shire, 100m  "pro  quietantia  carrucagii";  Worcestershire,  35m  "de 
comitatu  pro  quietantia  de  inquisitione  carrucagii";  Warwickshire, 
100m;  Leicestershire,  100m;  Salop,  30m;  Hertfordshire,  60m;  Essex, 
150m;  Bedfordshire,  80m;  Bucks,  120m;  Berks,  70m;  Northampton- 
shire, 150m  "de  comitatu  pro  remanenda  inquisitione  carrucagii"; 
Yorkshire,  100m;  Staffordshire,  30m;  Oxfordshire,  120m;  Surrey,  40m; 
Hereford,  30m;  Dorset,  150m;  Cambridge  and  Huntington,  51m  (17 
hundreds  charged  with  40s  each) ;  Norfolk  and  Suffolk,  165m  (48 
hundreds  at  40s  each,  3  hundreds  at  60s  each  and  2  hundreds  at  £4 
each);  Wilts,  15m  (one  vill).  See  also  Ramsay,  Angevin  Empire, 
p.  358.  Possibly  these  fines  refer,  not  to  the  original  payment  of 
carucage,  but  to  fines  made  by  the  counties  in  order  to  escape  the 
further  inquest  into  the  assessment  which  the  itinerant  justices  had 
been  ordered  to  make. 

8 


UNDER  JOHN  AND  HENRY  III 

land  could  hardly  have  exceeded  2,500  marks,  only  a  frac- 
tion of  what  a  strict  assessment  would  have  yielded. 

Thus,  at  the  close  of  the  twelfth  century,  there  were 
examples  of  all  the  taxes  levied  under  John  and  his  son. 
The  machinery  for  their  assessment  and  collection  had 
been  devised  and  it  will  be  found  that  it  did  not  vary 
much  throughout  the  period.  The  change  which  took 
place  lay  in  the  attitude  of  the  government  toward  these 
levies,  for  they  soon  came  to  be  regarded  as  regular 
sources  of  the  king's  income.  The  increase  in  their  fre- 
quency and  the  severity  with  which  the  royal  rights  in 
connection  with  them  were  insisted  on  led  to  the  combi- 
nation of  the  barons  which  resulted  in  the  establishment 
of  an  effective  check  on  the  king's  control  of  taxation. 

In  the  following  sections,  each  tax  will  be  treated  in 
detail  in  chronological  order ;  the  chief  points  to  be  studied 
are  the  occasion  and  the  circumstances  under  which  it 
was  levied,  the  incidence,  the  assessment  and  collection, 
and  the  amount  yielded.  This  method  involves  consider- 
able repetition,  but  in  no  other  way  can  the  facts  of  the 
taxation  of  the  period  be  presented.  In  a  final  chapter 
an  effort  will  be  made  to  draw  the  conclusions  which  the 
details  warrant;  and  at  that  point  some  new  material 
will  be  introduced  concerning  military  service  and  the 
growth  of  corporate  unity  among  the  baronage.  The 
taxes  to  be  discussed  are  the  dona  on  religious  houses, 
the  tallage,  the  scutage  levied  in  connection  with  cam- 
paigns, and  the  aids,  under  which  term  are  grouped  three 
levies :  the  aid  on  knights'  fees,  called  also  scutage,  the 
carucage,  and  the  tax  on  personal  property. 

The  dona  from  religious  houses  were  in  theory  purely 
voluntary.  In  practice,  they  may  be  regarded  as  com- 
pulsory. By  1250,  they  were  taken  with  some  regularity. 
Whenever  the  king  took  an  aid  from  other  classes,  or 
when  he  made  an  expedition  to  France,  the  religious 

9 


STUDIES  IN  TAXATION 

houses  usually  paid  dona.  In  1248,  a  further  step  was 
taken  by  Henry  III  when  he  collected  dona  from  them 
although  no  other  class  made  him  a  contribution.  We 
may  say  therefore  that  when  he  was  in  great  need,  the 
king  was  establishing  the  right  to  take  dona  from  the 
religious  houses.  The  sums  paid  were  not  based  on 
an  assessed  valuation  of  property  and  there  was  no  con- 
certed action  among  the  heads  of  the  houses.  Each  paid 
a  lump  sum  fixed  by  a  bargain  between  the  royal  officer 
and  the  house. 

The  tallage  became  a  more  regular  levy  and  was  taken 
independently  of  levies  on  other  classes.  It  was  not  vol- 
untary, but  owed.  It  was  not  based  on  property,  whether 
the  town  fined  for  it  or  paid  a  per  capita  tax.  It  was 
assessed  by  royal  officials,  usually  judges.  Both  the  tal- 
lage and  the  dona  added  considerable  sums  to  the  royal 
income  of  the  year.  They  illustrate  the  tendency  to  have 
service  performed  in  money,  but  except  in  this  very  gen- 
eral sense  they  did  not  lead  to  further  development  in 
taxation.  In  other  words,  the  taxation  of  property  did 
not  grow  out  of  either  of  these  levies. 

The  scutage  for  war  would  naturally  be  an  important 
levy,  taken  as  it  was  from  the  most  powerful  class  in 
society.  It  not  only  added  a  considerable  amount  to  the 
royal  income,  but  it  was  also  one  of  the  causes  of  Magna 
Carta.  The  provision  inserted  in  that  instrument  con- 
cerning scutage  is  one  of  the  early  steps  leading  to  the 
control  of  the  king  in  taxation.  The  points  which  will 
later  be  considered  in  connection  with  this  tax  are  the 
occasion  for  the  levy,  the  authority  by  which  it  was  taken, 
the  rate,  the  accompanying  fines,  the  incidence  of  both 
fines  and  scutage,  the  method  of  collection,  the  amount, 
and  the  military  service  which  tenants  rendered  to  the 
king.  A  study  of  these  topics  should  give  the  character 
of  the  scutage  and  explain  the  grievance  which  was  regis- 

10 


UNDER  JOHN  AND  HENRY  III 

tered  in  the  charter.  Two  alternative  theories  of  John's 
levies  may  be  offered.  First,  that  the  king  changed 
scutage  from  the  commutation  for  service  into  a  general 
tax  on  the  knight's  fee,  while  at  the  same  time  he  exacted 
the  military  service  due  from  each  holding,  or  collected 
a  fine  which  would  be  the  money  equivalent  of  that  ser- 
vice; second,  that  scutage  did  not  lose  its  original  char- 
acter as  the  composition  for  service,  though  as  such,  it 
might  be  replaced  by  a  fine.  In  the  first  case,  the  griev- 
ance of  the  tenants  would  be  clear;  they  would  still  have 
to  perform  the  service  due  from  their  fees,  while  in  addi- 
tion the  king  gained  a  new  customary  levy,  a  tax  on  the 
land.  Though  the  evidence  is  left  for  future  discussion, 
it  may  be  said  at  once  that  the  second  alternative  is  the 
true  one — scutage  did  not  become  a  general  tax.  The 
grievance  of  the  tenants,  therefore,  is  less  obvious,  but 
it  will  be  found  to  lie  in  the  fact  that  John  did  not  observe 
the  limits  which  had  been  customary  when  tenants  com- 
pounded for  their  services.  He  increased  the  rate ;  he  took 
fines ;  he  took  composition  on  improper  occasions ;  and  he 
levied  the  tax  at  the  opening  rather  than  at  the  close  of 
campaigns.  But  the  grievance  of  the  increase  of  the  rate 
and  the  fines  is  hardly  intelligible  unless  we  consider  the 
military  service  of  the  time.  In  the  majority  of  cases, 
the  yield  from  the  scutage,  or  even  the  fine,  would  not 
enable  the  king  to  put  in  the  field  a  number  of  knights 
equal  to  the  number  of  fees  which  were  exempted.  The 
fact  to  be  noticed  is  that  the  amount  of  military  service 
had  been  reduced.  There  was  no  regularity  in  this 
reduction,  sometimes  indeed  there  was  no  reduction  at 
all.27  The  greater  tenants  usually  served  with  reduced 

27  Thus  in  1258  the  abbot  of  St.  Albans  sent  six  knights  to  the 
host,  his  full  service  (see  below,  p.  285).  It  is  usually  the  lesser 
tenants  who  continue  to  perform  their  full  service  or  serve  with 
contingents  which  are  comparatively  only  slightly  reduced;  see  for 
examples,  below,  pp.  97,  110,  111,  150. 

11 


STUDIES  IN  TAXATION 

contingents ;  of  the  lesser  tenants  some  continued  to  serve 
while  others  had  their  service  in  practice  entirely  com- 
muted into  money.  The  reduced  number  of  knights  which 
the  tenant  led  to  the  host  was  regarded  as  the  entire  ser- 
vice due  from  his  holding.  Thus  the  sum  total  which  the 
tenants  paid  in  fine  or  scutage  was  really  the  composition 
for  a  smaller  number  of  knights  than  was  furnished  under 
the  old  nominal  service.  Consequently  the  rate  of  commu- 
tation per  knight  actually  furnished  was  much  higher  than 
the  nominal  rate  of  the  scutage  or  the  fine;28  it  is  likely 
that  a  rate  of  composition  at  one  pound  (1%  marks) 
per  fee  was  not  far  from  a  fair  rate  of  commutation  for 
the  knights  whom  the  tenant  in  chief  would  otherwise 
furnish.  But  a  further  element  must  be  considered.  The 
king  had  broken  away  from  the  old  customary  rate.  If 
he  could  raise  the  rate,  what  limit  would  there  be  to  his 
exactions?  He  had  the  right  to  full  military  service 
from  his  tenants.  A  sum  which  would  be  the  full  equiva- 
lent would  raise  the  rate  of  scutage  or  fine  to  six,  eight, 
or  ten  marks  per  fee.  Probably  neither  the  king  nor 
the  tenants  reasoned  the  matter  out  beyond  the  point 
that  the  former  would  take  all  he  could  get.  But  that 
the  latter  would  demand  and  obtain  composition  at  these 
high  rates  is  not  pure  theory,  for  in  1210  and  1211  we 
find  John  levying  such  fines.  Thus  the  grievance  of  the 
tenants  as  expressed  in  Magna  Carta  cannot  be  based 
on  the  sum  total  which  the  scutage  yielded,  for  that  is 
often  not  very  large,  often  not  so  large  even  as  the  tal- 
lage,  and  it  is  not  found  if  we  consider  merely  the  amount 
which  a  tenant  paid  in  fine  or  scutage.  The  cause  of 
complaint  becomes  evident  only  when  we  examine  the 
amount  of  composition  in  connection  with  military  ser- 

28  The  term,  fine,  is  here  used  to  mean  the  scutage  plus  the  extra 
amount  which  a  tenant  might  pay  in  order  to  be  exempt  from  ser- 
vice. The  fine  was  ordinarily  a  lump  sum. 

12 


UNDER  JOHN  AND  HENRY  III 

vice.  From  the  study  of  the  scutages  of  Henry  III,  it 
will  be  seen  that  while  in  many  respects  they  resemble 
John's  levies,  there  is  enough  difference  to  show  that  the 
king  took  them  in  accordance  with  the  law  and  that  the 
tenants  no  longer  feared  that  the  king  would  find  in  them 
a  weapon  of  oppression.  If  we  consider  the  effects  of 
scutage  on  the  relations  between  the  king  and  his  vassals, 
we  shall  find  that  it  was  the  most  important  levy  of  John's 
reign.  After  Magna  Carta,  it  was  still  levied,  but  its 
importance  declined.  It  was  supplanted  by  the  aids 
which  came  to  be  the  king's  main  resource  for  extraor- 
dinary levies  and  over  which  the  king  and  the  barons 
struggled. 

Under  the  term  aid  are  embraced  three  sorts  of  levies : 
the  aid  on  knights'  fees,  called  also  scutage;  the  caru- 
cage;  and  the  tax  on  moveables.  The  last  named,  the 
aid  on  moveables,  came  to  be  the  favorite  levy  of  the  king 
because  it  yielded  so  much  more  than  the  others.  These 
were  all  general  levies  and  the  royal  revenue  was  greatly 
increased  by  them.  Of  the  points  discussed  in  connection 
with  each  case  of  taxation,  viz.,  the  occasion  of  the  levy, 
the  authority  by  which  it  was  taken,  the  incidence,  the 
assessment  and  collection,  and  the  amount,  the  second, 
concerning  the  authority  for  the  levy,  should  be  espe- 
cially mentioned  here,  for  it  was  along  this  line  that  an 
unusual  development  occurred.  The  tallage  was  a  tax 
which  the  king  levied  arbitrarily  on  his  demesne;  the 
scutage  was  a  composition  for  service  and  was  therefore 
taken  by  virtue  of  the  king's  right  to  military  service 
from  his  vassals.  But  most  of  the  aids  were  voluntary 
just  as  were  the  dona  from  the  clergy.  In  theory,  the 
king  could  not  take  either  of  these  levies  except  by  the 
consent  of  the  contributors,  but  in  fact  he  had  practically 
been  able  to  establish  the  right  to  take  dona  from  relig- 

13 


STUDIES  IN  TAXATION 

ious  bodies  on  certain  important  occasions,  the  consent 
of  the  latter  being  purely  formal.  This  he  was  unable 
to  do  with  the  aids  on  the  tenants  in  chief  because  of  the 
development  of  corporate  opposition  to  his  demands. 
Thus  the  great  council  came  to  be  a  part  of  the  financial 
machinery  in  a  new  sense;  out  of  individual  consent  was 
developed  a  measure  of  corporate  consent.  In  connection 
with  the  aids,  therefore,  we  shall  consider  the  composition 
of  the  great  council,  the  completeness  of  the  corporate 
feeling  among  its  members,  the  extent  of  its  authority 
over  the  taxes,  and  its  aims  in  taxation.  Furthermore 
a  final  feature  of  the  reign  of  Henry  III  will  enjoy  our 
attention,  the  taxation  of  the  beneficed  clergy.  Between 
1253  and  the  close  of  his  reign,  Henry  III  repeatedly 
taxed  them.  It  is  at  first  sight  surprising  that  he  should 
have  succeeded  where  his  father  failed.  Some  precedent 
may  perhaps  be  sought  for  these  levies  in  the  sixteenth 
of  1226  and  the  dona  of  the  religious  clergy,  but  it  is 
likely  that  these  taxes  were  of  slight  importance.  The 
direct  historical  preparation  for  this  taxation  is  to  be 
found  rather  in  the  similar  taxation  of  the  English  clergy 
levied  by  the  pope  before  1250.  The  union  of  the  pope 
and  the  king  made  it  possible  for  Henry  III  to  tax  the 
English  clergy. 

Thus  by  the  reign  of  Edward  I,  the  scutage,  the  tal- 
lage,  and  the  donum  had  all  become  fixed  in  form  and 
amount ;  they  were  incapable  of  further  development. 
Progress  lay  along  another  line.  Precedents  had  been 
established  for  the  taxation  of  all  classes  in  the  kingdom, 
a  taxation  based  on  property,  assessed  and  collected  by 
special  royal  officials  in  combination  with  representatives 
of  the  locality.  At  the  same  time  a  series  of  precedents 
had  established  the  fact  that  the  king  could  not  levy  aids 
at  will. 

14 


UNDER  JOHN  AND  HENRY  III 

The  ordinary  revenue,  as  it  has  been  called  in  this 
study,  was  also  increased  at  about  the  beginning  of  John's 
reign.  The  farms  of  boroughs  and  manors  were  raised.29 
The  fines  seem  to  have  become  heavier  as  the  reign  went 
on.30  The  county  farm  had  become  a  fixed  sum  in  the 
closing  years  of  the  twelfth  century,  amounting  to  about 
16,000  marks,31  but  the  exchequer  was  beginning  to  charge 
an  additional  sum  in  some  counties.  The  earliest  case  is 
that  of  Bucks  in  14  Henry  II,  an  increase  of  £10.  This 
increase  was  called  increment,  and  was  kept  separate 
from  the  farm.  In  John's  reign  it  was  charged  against 
thirteen  sheriffs  and  amounted  to  1,525  marks.32  In  1205 
a  further  charge  was  made  (kept  separate  from  the  other 
two),  called  the  proficuum;  it  amounted  to  about  2,000 
marks.33  For  purposes  of  comparison  with  the  sums 
realized  from  the  scutages,  tallages,  and  the  taxes  on 
personal  property,  some  calculations  of  the  ordinary 
income  are  here  given. 

29  Fairer,  Lancashire  Pipe  Rolls  and  Early  Charters,  p.  137;  in 
1201,  some  towns  were  paying  an  increment  on  their  farms  (Rot. 
Cane.,  3  John,  pp.  35,  63,  116,  324). 

so  E.g.  for  the  custody  of  Doun  Bardolfs  land,  1,000  marks  (Pipe 
Roll,  10  John,  Cumberland) ;  Roger  Fitz  Adam,  1,000  marks  "pro 
habenda  benevolentia  regis"  (ibid.,  11  John,  Hants);  R.  de  Cornhull, 
10,000  marks  to  be  quit  of  the  debts,  etc.,  of  his  father  (ibid.,  12 
John,  Kent)  ;  the  monks  of  Battle  Abbey,  1,500  marks  for  confirma- 
tion of  their  liberties  (ibid.,  13  John,  Sussex  post  Line.);  the  citizens 
of  Lincoln,  a  fine  of  2,000  marks  "pro  excessu  suo"  (ibid.,  14  John, 
Line.)  ;  Hugh  de  Nevill,  6,000  marks  "pro  habenda  benevolentia  regis 
pro  duobus  prisonibus  .  .  .  qui  .  .  .  evaserunt"  and  for  other  things 
(ibid.,  14  John,  Wilts;  Madox,  History  and  Antiquities  of  the 
Exchequer,  ed.  1769,  I,  475,  n.  k)  ;  the  countess  of  Albemarle,  5,000 
marks  for  having  her  inheritance  and  dowry  and  not  to  be  forced 
to  marry  (Pipe  Roll,  14  John,  York). 

31  Turner,    in    the    Royal    Historical    Society    Transactions,    New 
Series,  XII,  142-149. 

32  Rot.  Cane.,  3  John. 

33  These  figures  are  not  exact ;  the  amount  of  the  proficuum  was 
not  always  the  same. 

15 


STUDIES  IN  TAXATION 

In  1201 : 

County  farm  and  increment  (about)      .          .      17,000  marks 
Town  farms,  fines,  escheats,  etc.  (sums  paid)       22,000 
Total 89,000      " 

In  1205: 

County  farm  and  increment  .          .          .  17,000  marks 

Town  farms,  etc 20,000      " 

Proficuum 2,000      " 

Total 89,000      " 

On  the  basis  of  the  returns  of  these  two  years,  the  amount 
of  the  ordinary  income  hardly  reached  40,000  marks 
(£26,666%),  for  part  of  the  farm  was  granted  out  to 
various  persons  and  the  revenue  from  the  county  was  thus 
diminished.34  Sir  James  Ramsay  makes  the  total  for  8 
John  somewhat  larger,  51,774m  12s  3d  (£34,516  12s  3d).85 
The  account  of  that  year  was  swelled  by  the  income  of  the 
archbishopric  of  Canterbury,  amounting  to  £5,169  19s  5d 
(  a  little  over  7,500  marks) .  Deducting  this,  the  sum  total 
will  not  be  much  greater  than  in  the  years  just  cited.  It 
is  not  possible  to  say  how  complete  a  statement  of  the 
ordinary  income  was  rendered  in  the  Pipe  Roll.  It  is 
striking  that  the  accounts  of  the  three  years  should  be 
so  nearly  equal.  Part  of  the  income  was  certainly  not 
given  in  the  roll.  Of  the  carucage  of  1200,  of  the  seventh 
in  1203,  of  the  thirteenth  of  1207,  no  return  is  given. 
These  levies,  however,  belonged  to  the  extraordinary 
revenue. 

»*  Turner,  p.  117. 

85  Ramsay,  Angevin  Empire,  p.  304. 


16 


rilHE  taxes,  which  had  been  taken  more  often  under 
•*•  Richard  than  under  Henry  II,  became  still  more  fre- 
quent in  John's  reign.  From  1199  till  the  fall  of  1206, 
an  intermittent  struggle  was  carried  on  against  Philip 
Augustus  for  the  possession  of  the  Angevin  lands  in 
France.  This  occasioned  in  one  form  or  another  seven 
scutages,  four  or  five  tallages,  a  carucage,  a  seventh  of 
moveables,  and  two  or  three  dona  from  religious  houses 
which  did  not  hold  by  military  tenure.  The  scutages 
were  all  scutages  in  the  strict  sense;  they  were  not  aids 
taken  on  all  the  fees.  Each  year  some  tenants  received 
writs  of  quittance  and  the  rest  paid  a  money  composition, 
either  scutage  or  fine.  Now  the  writ  of  quittance  did  not, 
as  might  be  supposed,  cover  merely  the  personal  service 
of  the  tenant  in  chief;  it  included  also  the  service  of  his 
whole  holding.1  In  order  to  make  this  fact  clear,  we 
must  say  something  about  the  accounts  of  scutage  ren- 
dered in  the  Pipe  Roll.  The  names  entered  were  regularly 
those  of  the  tenants  in  chief.  The  only  exception  to  this 
statement  was  when  an  honor  was  in  hand ;  then  the  rear- 
vassals  would  sometimes  be  enrolled  charged  with  scutage 
or  acquitted.2  A  baron  who  held  lands  in  more  than  one 

1  It  often  happens  that  a  tenant  is  entered  as  acquitted  in  one 
county  because  he  renders  his  account  in  another.    The  statement  in 
the  text  applies  to  the  case  when  a  tenant  is  entered  as  acquitted 
wherever  his  name  appears  in  the  roll. 

2  The  tenants  of  the  honor  of  Gloucester  appear  in  the  roll  in  the 
first  scutages  of  John ;  the  tenants  of  the  honor  of  William  de  Mohun 
appear  in  the  second  and  third  scutages  of  John.    When  these  honors 
pass  into  the  hands  of  tenants  in  chief,  the  rear-vassals  no  longer 

17 


STUDIES  IN  TAXATION 

county  would  sometimes  be  entered  in  the  accounts  of 
the  different  counties,  but  under  his  own  name,  not  under 
the  names  of  his  vassals.8  When,  therefore,  we  find  a 
tenant  acquitted  of  scutage  whenever  his  name  appears 
in  the  roll,  we  may  conclude  that  this  writ  of  quittance 
applies  to  all  the  land  which  he  holds  of  the  king.4  The 
scutage  rolls  contain  the  names  of  those  tenants  to  whom 
the  king  has  granted  their  scutage  because  they  have 
performed  their  service.  Many  exist  for  the  reign  of 
Henry  III,  but  only  one  for  John's  reign,  that  of  Poitou, 
1214.  A  comparison  of  the  Scutage  Roll  with  the  corre- 
sponding Pipe  Roll  shows  that  the  tenants  who  are 
entered  in  the  former  as  having  their  scutage  are  entered 
in  the  latter  in  the  list  of  those  having  writs  of  quittance. 
It  seems  fair  to  conclude,  therefore,  that  the  lists  of  writs 
of  quittance  under  John  contain  the  names  of  those  who 
have  performed  their  service,  have  been  exempted  from 
paying  scutage  at  the  exchequer,  and  have  been  granted 
writs  de  habendo  scutagio.5 

appear  (cf.  the  entry  for  the  honor  of  Gloucester  in  Rot.  Cane.,  p. 
55,  with  Pipe  Roll,  16  John,  Glouc.  m.  5  d;  for  the  honor  of  Dunstor, 
cf.  Rot.  Cane.,  pp.  205-209,  with  Pipe  Roll,  7  John,  Dors,  and  Somers. 
m.  11  d).  This  does  not  mean  that  when  an  honor  is  in  hand  the 
rear-vassals  always  appear  in  the  roll. 

*  In  1199,  Ralph  de  Sumery  was  entered  as  acquitted  in  six  baili- 
wicks: Staff.,  Bucks  and  Bedf.,  Berks,  Wigorn.,  Rutland,  War.  and 
Leic.  (Pipe  Roll,  1  John). 

*  An  analysis  of  the  account  of  any  scutage  shows  that  there  is 
no  amount  of  scutage  charged  large  enough  to  represent  a  scutage 
paid  by  the  rear-vassals  of  those  tenants  who  have  performed  their 
service  and  have  received  writs  of  quittance.    Thus  in  1199,  the  first 
scutage  of  John,  about  2,500  fees  are  charged  with  fine  or  scutage; 
that   leaves   about   3,500    fees   with   no   charge    against   them.     The 
amount  charged  against  the  2,500  fees  can  be  practically  identified  as 
charged  against  certain  clergy  and  greater  lay  tenants.    Such  amount 
as  cannot  be  thus  identified  will  be  entirely  inadequate  to  represent 
a  scutage  against  rear-vassals  of  the  remaining  tenants  in  chief. 

s  There  are  some  writs  in  the  Close  Roll  under  John  by  which  a 
tenant  is  granted  his  scutage;  such  a  man  will  appear  in  the  Pipe 

18 


UNDER  JOHN  AND  HENRY  III 

These  scutages  were  then  taken  in  connection  with 
expeditions,  but  not  always  fairly.  They  were  levied  at 
the  opening  rather  than  at  the  close  of  a  campaign  and 
sometimes  the  character  of  the  operations  which  followed 
would  hardly  justify  their  levy.  Thus  in  1199,  John 
concluded  a  truce  immediately  after  landing  in  France; 
in  1201,  there  seems  to  have  been  no  fighting  at  all.  In 
1202  and  1203,  there  is  no  existing  copy  of  a  summons, 
though  probably  one  was  issued;  at  any  rate  a  scutage 
was  taken.  In  1204  and  1205,  the  host  was  summoned 
but  not  despatched,  and  a  scutage  was  levied.  In  1206, 
the  levy  of  the  scutage  was  entirely  legal.  All  these  levies 
were  accompanied  by  fines  which  in  many  cases  increased 
the  amount  of  composition  of  those  tenants  who  failed  to 
perform  their  service. 

The  levy  of  1204  merits  special  notice.  It  was  taken 
at  a  meeting  of  the  great  council  and  is  said  to  have  been 
granted  by  it.  Probably  this  expression  does  not  mean 
anything  more  than  that  the  barons  agreed  to  the 
increase  in  the  rate  of  that  year  and  to  the  proposition 
of  the  king  that  the  levy  should  be  put  in  charge  before 
the  host  was  summoned  so  that  he  could  have  the  use  of 
more  of  the  money  in  that  campaign. 

We  have  already  said  that  these  scutages  were  not 

Roll  in  the  list  of  those  who  have  been  granted  writs  of  quittance. 
"Mandatum  est  vicecomiti  Bukingh'  quod  faciat  habere  Sahero  de 
Quency  scutagium  suum  in  balliva  sua.  Similiter  mandatum  est 
aliis  vicecomitibus  in  quorum  ballivis  terras  habet"  (Rot.  Lift.  Claus., 
I,  43b,  6th  scutage) ;  in  the  Pipe  Roll  this  tenant  is  entered  as 
acquitted  in  Bucks  and  Bedf.,  Norf.  and  Suff.,  and  Oxford.  "Rex 
cancellario  suo  salutem.  Mandamus  vobis  quod  habere  faciatis 
Thomae  de  NevilT  scutagium  suum  de  feodo  militis  que  tenet  de 
nobis  in  capite  scilicet  de  scuto  iii  marcas  pro  exercitu  Pictaviae  in 
quo  militem  suum  nobiscum  habuit"  (ibid.,  177a)  ;  Thomas  de  Nevill 
is  among  the  list  of  those  having  writs  of  quittance  in  Bucks  and 
Bedf.  (Pipe  Roll,  16  John,  m.  2).  Cf.  also  the  men  who  are 
granted  their  scutage  in  Rot.  Litt.  Claus.,  I,  200b  with  the  account 
of  the  scutage  of  Poitou  in  Pipe  Roll,  16  John. 

19 


STUDIES  IN  TAXATION 

general  taxes.  It  seems  clear  that  in  general  the  king 
did  not  collect  them  from  the  rear-vassals  of  the  tenants 
in  chief  who  were  liable,  but  as  had  been  customary  col- 
lected them  from  the  tenants  in  chief. 

The  tallage  calls  for  no  special  comment  here  other 
than  to  say  that  it  was  taken  less  often  than  the  scutage. 
The  explanation  for  this  is  probably  that  the  king  had 
the  excuse  for  levying  the  scutage  in  the  summons  to  the 
host.  The  tallage  was  owed,  but  it  would  seem  that 
there  was  no  such  convenient  excuse  for  taking  it  as  often 
as  the  scutage. 

The  carucage,  it  will  be  found,  was  taken  with  the 
feudal  excuse  that  it  was  to  pay  the  relief  for  the  lands 
in  France.  It  was  customary  to  take  an  aid  to  pay  the 
lord's  relief,  but  the  so-called  relief  of  this  year  was  not 
for  the  kingdom  of  England,  but  for  other  lands  which 
the  king  of  England  held.  The  levy  of  the  carucage  for 
this  purpose  may  therefore  have  been  considered  an 
abuse.  Regarding  the  actual  assessment  and  collection, 
we  know  little.  The  fact  that  the  carucage  was  to  be 
based  on  the  ploughlands  instead  of  being  paid  in  lump 
sums  indicates  that  the  government  wanted  to  base  the 
levy  on  property.  That  would  not  only  give  a  more 
definite  basis  for  the  tax,  but  would  also  make  it  neces- 
sary for  those  who  did  not  wish  to  pay  it  to  obtain  special 
exemption  from  the  king. 

The  seventh  also  was  taken  under  a  feudal  plea,  viz., 
that  the  tenants  had  deserted  the  king.  Hence  their  lands 
would  be  technically  forfeit.  John  seems  to  have  made 
this  tax  a  general  levy,  basing  it  on  property  and  apply- 
ing it  to  men  who  could  not  have  been  guilty.  From  the 
seventh,  the  tenant  had  also  to  get  a  special  writ  of 
exemption. 

Other  levies  which  fell  in  this  period  are  these:  the 
fortieth  for  the  crusade ;  the  fifteenth  on  merchants ;  and 

20 


UNDER  JOHN  AND  HENRY  III 

taxes  on  the  Channel  Isles,  all  of  which  were  taken  on 
property  or  income.  Some  local  machinery  was  used  to 
assess  and  collect  them.  Thus  they  illustrate  the  general 
tendency  to  base  taxation  on  property  and  to  get  at  the 
value  of  the  property  through  the  jury,  that  is,  the  jury 
was  used  for  the  advantage  of  the  king  and  not  to  protect 
the  taxpayer. 

THE  TAXES  OF  1199 

On  June  20  or  21,  within  a  month  after  his  coronation 
on  May  27,  John  returned  to  Normandy  to  carry  on 
the  struggle  against  Philip  Augustus.  The  host  was 
assembled6  and  a  considerable  army  crossed  the  channel 
with  the  king,7  This  force  was  partly  composed  of 
mercenaries.8  The  campaign  lasted  till  the  end  of 
October,  but  there  was  no  fighting  in  July  and  August.9 
Just  how  many  English  tenants  performed  their  service 
in  the  field  this  year  cannot  be  stated.  Not  more  than 
2,500  fees  were  charged  in  the  roll  with  fines  or  scutage. 
If  we  deduct  this  number  from  the  total  number  of  fees 
in  England,  we  get  about  4,000  knights  serving,  a  number 
which  seems  far  too  large.10  The  array  however  included 

« "de  hanc  summonitione  exercitus" ;  "pro  remanendo  quod  non 
trans  fretet  cum  domino  rege";  "pro  militibus  quos  debuerat  misisse 
in  servicio  domini  regis  in  Normanniam"  (Rotuli  de  Oblatis  et 
Finibus,  pp.  2,  11,  27). 

7  "Maximum  exercitum"    (Ralph   of  Coggeshal,   Chronicon  Angli- 
canum,  ed.  Stevenson,   Rolls   Series,  p.   100) ;  "collecta  multitudine 
militum  et  peditum"  (Ralph  of  Diceto,  Opera  Historica,  ed.  Stubbs, 
Rolls  Series,  II,  166). 

8  "Et  in  quingentis  Walensibus  peditibus  et  x  Walensibus  equiti- 
bus  .  .  .  qui   trans  fretaverunt   in   servicium   regis   per   breve   regis" 
(Pipe  Roll,   1  John,   Hereford) ;  in   1200,  payments  were  made  to 
mercenaries,   so   that   the   practice   was   not   uncommon    (Rotuli   de 
Liberate,  p.  6). 

»Hov.,  IV,  92,  93,  97;  there  was  a  truce  from  June  24  till  August 
16  and  hostilities  were  not  renewed  till  September. 

1°  These  figures,  as  has  been  said  above  (p.  4),  are  based  on  the 
number  of  fees  which  paid  scutage  and  hence  are  somewhat  larger 

21 


STUDIES  IN  TAXATION 

many  of  the  greater  tenants  in  chief  and  about  half  of 
the  service  of  the  clergy.11 

In  connection  with  this  expedition  there  were  levied  a 
scutage,  a  tallage,  and  sums,  called  variously  dona, 
tallagia,  or  promissa,  on  religious  houses.  The  taxation 
was  put  in  charge  and  the  collection  begun  during  the 
summer,  perhaps  before  the  expedition  sailed.  It  appears 
in  the  Pipe  Roll  of  1199  as  partly  paid;  there  is  an  order 
for  the  collection  of  the  scutage  on  September  1  ;12  the 
demand  for  dona  from  religious  houses  was  made  before 
June  20.13 

The  levy  on  knights'  fees  usually  took  the  form  of  a 
scutage  at  two  marks  per  fee,  sometimes  accompanied 
or  replaced  by  a  sum,  called  a  fine  ne  transfretet,  pro 
passagio,  etc.,  which  was  not  at  a  fixed  rate  per  fee.  The 
following  account  will  show  the  character  of  this  levy: 

Scutage  at  2m. 

M  s  d 

Clerical  tenants           .          .          .      1049  11  6 
Forty-three14  lay  tenants  (each  5 

or  more  fees)15  .          .          .      1972       0  1 
Lay  tenants   (each  fewer  than  5 

fees,  etc.)16         .          .          .      1257       8  6 

Total 4279  6  9 

than  the  servitium  debitum.  A  tenant  who  refused  to  serve  might 
be  disseized.  Matthew  Turpin,  a  sergeant,  was  disseized  (Madox,  I, 
663,  n.  «);  Henry  Faulkner,  1  fee  (Rot.  Obi,  p.  40). 

11  These  were  excused  from  any  money  payment. 

12  Madox,  I,  680,  n.  n.    In  the  Memoranda  Roll  of  Michaelmas,  1199, 
is  the  following  item:  "Eustachius  de  Baillol  habet  respectum  per 
justic'  de  debito  suo  de  secundo  scutagio  (of  Richard)  et  tercio  et 
novo  (i.e.  of  1199)"  (Exch.,  L.  T.  R.,  Bundle  1,  no.  3,  m.  1  d).    Thus 
the  scutage  was  to  be  paid  at  the  exchequer  at  Michaelmas,  1199. 

is  "de  auxilio  quod  dominus  rex  exegit  ab  eis  ante  trans fretationem 
suam"  (Rot.  Obi,  p.  22). 

14  Of  this  number,  four  are  tenants  on  honors  in  hand  and  there 
are  three  honors  which  account  in  one  sum  through  the  custodian: 
Wallingford  (200^m)  ;  Brittany  (280m);  Chokes  (30m). 

22 


UNDER  JOHN  AND  HENRY  III 

Fines 

M  s  d 

Clerical  tenants  .          .          .        320  0  0   on    53  fees 

Eleven  lay  tenants  (each  5  or  more 

fees)17        .          .          .  705  6  8    "    149    " 

Other  lay  tenants  (each  fewer  than 

5   fees)17  .          .  252  0  0    "      50    " 

Total      ....  .      1277  68"    252    " 

Additional  fine  or  scutage18  .        201  0  5 

Fees  taxed  (about)  2500. 

Total  fine  and  scutage         .          .      5758  0  6 

Paid,  1  and  2  John19  .  .      3395  3  7 

Thus  tenants  holding  about  2,500  fees  are  entered  in  the 
roll  as  owing  scutage  or  fine.  Some  of  these  seem  to  have 
also  performed  service  with  the  host.  The  abbot  of 

is  In  this  essay,  the  lay  tenants  in  chief  have  been  arbitrarily 
divided  into  two  classes,  those  who  held  five  or  more  fees,  called 
here  the  greater  lay  tenants,  and  those  who  held  fewer  than  five 
fees,  the  lesser  lay  tenants.  We  do  not  claim  that  it  was  necessary 
for  a  tenant  to  have  at  least  five  fees  in  order  to  be  considered  a 
great  tenant,  but  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  division  into  greater 
and  lesser  tenants  which  was  recognized  in  the  thirteenth  century 
rested  mainly  on  the  number  of  fees  which  the  tenant  held.  For  purposes 
of  illustrating  the  incidence  of  the  scutage,  it  is  convenient  to  draw 
a  horizontal  line  between  the  greater  and  the  lesser  tenants,  and 
to  draw  it  at  ten  fees  seemed  too  high.  Inasmuch  as  the  unit  of 
the  allotment  of  lands  by  the  Conqueror  (Round,  Feudal  England, 
p.  259)  was  a  five-knight  unit,  it  seems  fair  to  take  the  number  five 
as  the  line  of  division  between  the  greater  and  the  lesser  tenants. 
If  an  honor  in  hand  accounted  in  one  sum  through  the  custodian, 
that  too  has  been  included  in  this  group.  But  if  the  sub-tenants  on 
an  honor  in  hand  accounted  separately  to  the  sheriff  or  the  exchequer, 
they  have  been  included  in  the  group  of  greater  or  lesser  tenants 
according  as  they  held  more  or  fewer  than  five  fees  and  the  honor 
as  a  whole  has  not  been  counted  as  one  great  tenant.  Thus  the 
group  of  greater  lay  tenants  will  usually  include  some  honors  in  hand 
and  some  sub-tenants  on  honors  in  hand,  while  the  group  of  lesser 
tenants  will  always  include  some  tenants  who  are  sub-tenants. 

16  Besides  tenants  in  chief,  this  group  includes  tenants  who  are  on 
honors  in  hand  and  are  entered  by  name  in  the  roll;  when  an  honor 

23 


STUDIES  IN  TAXATION 

Ramsey  paid  eight  marks  on  his  four  fees,  yet  his  knights 
were  with  the  king  ;20  the  bishop  of  Winchester  likewise  ;21 
the  earl  of  Devon  had  knights  in  the  king's  service  and 
paid  30  marks  scutage;22  William  de  Braose  was  charged 
with  56  marks  on  28  fees  and  he  performed  at  least  part 
of  his  service.23  The  first  three  are  clear  cases  of  double 
exaction,24  but  in  general  it  seems  to  be  true  that  tenants 
who  performed  their  service  received  writs  of  quittance 
and  either  paid  nothing  at  the  exchequer,  or  only  the 
amount  due  on  fees  detached  from  the  main  body  of  their 
holding.  They  might  also  pay  a  part  of  their  scutage, 
apparently  because  the  sheriff  had  not  yet  received 
notification  of  their  exemption  from  the  levy.  But  all 
sums  collected  in  this  way  were  small;  they  are  not  suffi- 
cient to  show  that  the  tenants  as  a  rule  paid  scutage  and 
served  as  well.25  Men  who  served  were  granted  writs  of 

is  only  partly  accounted  for  by  the  custodian,  it  is  entered  in  this 
group.  Detached  fees  of  a  barony  not  in  hand  are  included  here 
unless  it  is  certain  that  they  should  be  included  in  the  main  account 
of  the  barony.  This  year,  628m  were  charged  against  honors  in 
hand  and  60m  against  detached  fees  of  great  barons,  leaving  less 
than  600m  against  tenants  in  chief. 

IT  Both  tenants  in  chief  and  tenants  on  honors  in  hand  who  are 
entered  by  name  in  the  roll. 

18  I  cannot  find  the  number  of  fees  held  by  these  men. 

19  That  is,  the  payment  is   enrolled  in   the   Pipe   Rolls   of  these 
years.    Of  this  sum,  2,645m  4s  3d  were  paid  in  1199  and  749m  12s  8d 
in  1200. 

20  Pipe  Roll,  1  and  7  John,  Cant,  and  Hunt.;  Rotuli  Curia  Regis, 
ed.  Palgrave,  1835,  II,  122. 

21  Pipe  Roll,  2  John,  Hants,  m.  7  d;  Rot.  Cur.  Regis,  II,  67. 

22  Pipe  Roll,  1  John,  Devon,  m.  14  d;  2  John,  Devon;  Rot.  Cur. 
Regis,  II,  38. 

23  Pipe  Roll,  ibid.;  Rot.  Cur.  Regis,  II,  8.    He  never  paid  it. 

2*  The  explanation  of  these  cases  may  be  that  the  tenants  bar- 
gained to  pay  their  scutage  and  perform  part  of  their  service,  instead 
of  paying  a  fine.  Different  sorts  of  bargains  were  made  (see  below, 
p.  27) ;  see  the  bargains  made  with  Fulk  Painel  and  the  earl  of 
Devon  in  the  second  scutage  (see  below,  p.  39,  note  117). 

25  The   following  men  were  quit,  but   paid  some   small   sums   as 

24 


UNDER  JOHN  AND  HENRY  III 

quittance  which  are  listed  in  each  county  under  the  head- 
ing: "Isti  habent  quietantiam  per  brevia."  Thus  the 
bishop  of  London  had  his  knights  with  the  king  and  had 
a  writ  of  quittance;26  also,  William  de  Mowbray;27  the 
earl  of  Warwick  ;28  Ralph  de  Sumery  ;29  William  de  Long- 
champ  ;30  Gilbert  Peke  ;31  the  earl  of  Chester.32  If  a  tenant 
performed  his  service,  but  failed  to  secure  the  writ  of 
quittance,  he  would  be  charged  with  scutage  in  the  roll. 
But  he  would  not  be  forced  to  pay.  Time  would  be 
granted  him  and  later  when  he  secured  the  necessary 
writ,  his  debt  would  be  crossed  off.33 

described  in  the  text:  Walter  de  Lacy,  51%  fees,  paid  2m  in  Berks; 
Gilbert  Peke,  19  fees,  paid  1m  in  Berks;  Guido  de  Laval,  20  fees, 
paid  3m  in  Oxford ;  Gerard  de  Canvill  paid  ^m  in  Berks,  was  charged 
with  2m  in  Oxford,  of  which  he  paid  1m  "et  debet  i  marcam  sed 
postea  habuit  quietanciam  de  marca  ilia  per  breve  regis"  (Pipe  Roll, 
1  John,  Oxf.,  m.  16  d). 

26  "habet  milites  suos  cum  rege"  (Rot.  Cur.  Regis,  II,  7);  he  has 
quittance  of  the  first  scutage  in  Glouc.,   Essex  and  Hertf.,  Wilts, 
Oxford,  and  Line.  (Pipe  Roll,  1  John,  m.  3  d,  11,  13  d,  16  d). 

27  Rot.  Cur.  Regis,  II,  42;  has  quittance  of  the  first  scutage  (Pipe 
Roll,  1  John,  War.  and  Leic.,  Northamp.,  York). 

28  Rot.  Cur.   Regis,  II,   76;   Pipe   Roll,   1  John,   War.   and  Leic., 
Wigorn.,  Northamp. 

29  William  Salt  Arch.  Soc.  Coll.,  Ill,  31;  Pipe  Roll,  1  John,  Staff. 
*o Rot.  Cur.  Regis,  II,  33;  is  quit  of  scutage  (Pipe  Roll,  1  John, 

Line.,  War.  and  Leic.). 

31  Gilbert  Peke  "dicit  quod  ipse  milites  habet  cum  domino  rege" 
(Rot.  Cur.  Regis,  II,  122) ;  has  quittance  of  his  scutage  (Red  Book, 
I,  119). 

32  William  Salt,  etc.,  Ill,  36;  has  quittance  in  five  bailiwicks. 

33  This  seems  to  be  the  meaning  of  cases  where  a  tenant  is  charged 
with  scutage  in  the  roll  and  the  amount  later  written  off  with  the 
note  that  afterward  he  had  a  writ  of  quittance.    Simon  de  Beauchamp 
"debet  quater  xx  et  xi  marc,  et  dimidiam  de  scutagio  sed  postea  habuit 
quietantiam  per  breve  Galfridi  filii  Petri"  (Pipe  Roll,  1  John,  Bucks 
and  Bedf.,  m.  8  d) ;  also,  William  de  Mowbray,  Robert  de  Turnham, 
and  Guido  de  Laval  (ibid.,  York,  m.  4  d) ;  "Philippus  de  Columbieres 
debet  xx  marc,  de  scutagio;  sed  habet  quietantiam  per  breve  regis  de 
ultra  mare"  (ibid.,  Dors,  and  Somers.,  m.  17  d).    A  small  part  of  the 
scutage  of  such  a  tenant  might  be  paid  before  the  writ  of  quittance 
arrived;  e.g.  see  note  25,  for  Guido  de  Laval. 

25 


STUDIES  IN  TAXATION 

The  levy  of  the  scutage  proper  was  not  confined  to  the 
lesser  tenants.  Of  the  forty  tenants  who  held  five  or  more 
fees,  four  held  more  than  twenty.  The  earl  of  Clare  was 
charged  with  283m  10s  4d  of  scutage  (paid  51m)  ;34 
Henry  de  Oilli  with  65m;35  Hervey  Bagot  with  120m;36 
William  de  Braose  with  56m;37  the  earl  of  Devon  (15 
fees)  paid  his  scutage.38 

Fines  ne  transfretet  began  to  be  taken  at  least  in 
Richard's  reign.39  By  virtue  of  the  fine,  the  whole  fee 
of  the  tenant  escaped  service  in  the  host.  The  fines  did 
not  form  an  important  part  of  the  levy  this  year  as  only 
about  250  fees  were  charged  with  them.  Some  important 
tenants  are  included.  Eustace  de  Balliol  was  charged  with 
60m  scutage  and  200m  fine  on  30  fees;40  William  Fitz 
Alan  with  55m  scutage  on  27%  fees  and  60m  fine;41  Ralph 

3*  Pipe  Roll,  1  John,  Norf.  and  Suff.,  m.  20. 
35  Ibid.,  Oxf.,  m.  16  d.    About  half  was  paid. 
3«  Ibid.,  Staff.,  £35  paid. 

37  Ibid.,  Devon,  m.  14  d.    No  payment  is  recorded.    Another  tenant 
holding  more  than  20  fees  was  Henry  de  Tracy,  who  is  charged  with 
50i£m  of  scutage   for  the  fee  of  William  de   Tracy    (ibid.).     The 
charge  appears  in  the  roll  till  1209,  when  this  note  is  added:  "sed 
inquisitum   est  que   habuit   quietantiam   de   L   marcis   et    dim.    per 
breve  regis"  (Pipe  Roll,  11  John,  Devon,  m.  8).    In  1199,  he  accounts 
for  1,000  marks  for  having  all  the  land  of  his  father,  William  de 
Tracy,  and  his  scutage  is  perhaps  to  be  included  in  this  fine  (ibid., 
1  John,  m.  14  d). 

38  Ibid.,  1  and  2  John,  Devon. 

3»  "De  illis  qui  finem  fecerunt  pro  passagio"  (Red  Book,  I,  99,  102, 
115).  They  perhaps  go  back  to  the  time  of  Henry  II:  "de  scutagio 
baronum  qui  nee  abierunt  cum  rege  in  Hiberniam  nee  milites  nee 
denarios  pro  se  miserunt"  (Pipe  Roll,  18  Henry  II,  p.  187). 

40  Pipe  Roll,  1  John,  Northumb.,  m.  8  d ;  2  John,  Northumb. 

*i  Ibid.,  Salop,  m.  6.  His  servitium  debitum  was  10  fees  (Round, 
Feudal  England,  p.  256).  His  old  enfeoffment  was  22^  fees  in  Salop, 
and  Wilts,  and  5  fees  in  Norfolk;  his  new  enfeoffment  was  8  fees 
(Red  Book,  I,  271-274).  In  1194  and  1196,  he  was  charged  with 
scutage  on  27i£  fees  (ibid.,  pp.  86,  105),  and  accounted  for  this  num- 
ber in  1199,  1201  and  1202  (Pipe  Roll,  Salop,  1  John  and  4  John;  Rot. 
Cane.,  p.  128) ;  in  1203,  he  is  charged  with  20m,  i.e.,  10  fees  (Pipe  Roll, 

26 


UNDER  JOHN  AND  HENRY  III 

Fitz  Stephen  with  40m  fine  on  13%  fees;42  the  abbot  of 
St.  Albans  with  150m  fine  on  40  fees.43  It  is  impossible 
to  say  why  these  tenants  paid  fines  while  other  tenants 
paid  scutage  only.  Sometimes  the  fine  was  so  large  that 
it  doubled  what  the  scutage  would  have  been.  The  fine 
was  reckoned  in  two  ways  :  a  lump  sum  by  virtue  of  which 
the  tenant  was  exempt  from  service  and  was  given  the 
right  to  collect  scutage  from  his  vassals  ;44  a  fine  for  his 
personal  service  and  for  the  right  to  collect  scutage  from 
his  demesne  while  he  paid  scutage  on  the  infeudated  part 
of  his  holding.45  The  difference  was  one  of  form,  not 
of  principle;  it  depended  on  the  bargain  made  between 
the  king  and  the  tenant.  In  effect,  the  tenant  paid  a  sum 
larger  than  his  scutage  and  his  whole  fee  escaped  service 
with  the  host. 

Ultimately  the  rear-vassals  paid  the  scutage,  whether 
the  tenant  in  chief  paid  fine  or  scutage.  In  paying  either 
contribution,  the  tenant  in  chief  received  the  right  to 


5  John,  Salop).  In  1214,  the  guardian  of  the  fee  accounted  for 
fees  old  and  8  fees  new  enfeoffment  (ibid.,  16  John,  Salop)  ;  in  1218 
and  thereafter,  John  Fitz  Alan,  who  succeeded  to  the  barony,  ac- 
counted for  221^  fees  (Pipe  Roll,  2  Henry  III,  Salop). 

42  Ibid.,  Notts,  and  Derby,  m.  15  d. 

43  Ibid.,  Norf  .  and  Suff.,  m.  20. 

44  "Willelmus  de  Scalariis  dat  domino  regi  xl  marc,  pro  habenda 
quietantia  de  hac   summonitione   exercitus   et  pro  habendo  scutagio 
suo  de  feodo  quod  tenet  de  domino  rege  in  capite"  (Rot.  Obi.,  p.  27). 
He  held  15  fees. 

45  Walter  de  Cormeiles  "r  c  de  viii  li.  de  scutagio  suo  praeter  feoda 
trium  militum  qui  sunt  in  dominico  suo  de  quibus  pacem  habet  per 
finem  quod  fecit  qui  infra  annotatur"  (Pipe  Roll,  1  John,  Heref.  m. 
16)  ;  the  fine  referred  to  was  for  £10  "pro  eodem,  i.e.  ne  transfretet 
et  pro  habendo  scutagio  de  dominico  suo"  (ibid.).     In  1166,  this  fee 
consisted   of   6    fees    of   old   enfeoffment   and   3    fees   "de    dominio" 
(Red  Book,  I,  286).    Henry  de  Pinkney  paid  100s  fine  "pro  habenda 
pace  ne  transfretet  et  pro  habendo  scutagio  de  dominico  suo";  he 
also  paid  scutage  on  13i£  fees    (Pipe  Roll,  1  John,  Bucks,  Berks, 
Northamp.,  m.  2  d,  8  d,  18  d).     In  1166,  the  servitium  debitum  was 
15  fees  of  which  2  fees  were  "in  dominico"  (Red  Book,  I,  317). 

27 


STUDIES  IN  TAXATION 

collect  scutage  from  his  vassals.46  Barons  were  charged 
with  scutage  and  acquitted  in  several  counties.  They 
might  indeed  pay  the  whole  amount  in  one  sum,  but  often 
that  part  due  from  a  detached  part  of  the  honor  was  paid 
separately.  Thus  Henry  de  Pinkney  accounted  for  27m 
in  Bucks,  of  which  sum,  7m  were  paid  in  Berks  and  15m  4d 
in  Northamptonshire.47  Henry  de  Oilli  paid  8s  lOd  in 
Staffordshire,  6s  8d  in  Berks,  4m  in  Bucks,  30m  8s  in 
Oxfordshire  and  2m  in  Northamptonshire.48  This  also 
shows  that  the  exchequer  was  trying  to  find  out  the 
location  of  fees.  The  practice  had  already  begun  in 
Richard's  reign.49  A  good  example  is  the  case  of  the 
bishop  of  Winchester.  He  owed  scutage  in  Essex,  but 
the  sheriff  reported  that  he  did  not  know  how  many  fees 
the  bishop  held  in  that  bailiwick.50  The  total  service  of 
the  bishopric  was  of  course  known.  The  rear-vassal  was 
not  responsible  for  the  fine;  he  paid  scutage  only.  The 
writ  which  the  tenant  in  chief  received  when  he  paid  a 
fine  gave  him  permission  to  collect  scutage  from  his 
vassals.51 

The  collection  of  the  scutage  and  fine  was  made  in  dif- 
ferent ways.    Part  of  the  levy  was  paid  at  the  exchequer, 

*•  Above,  notes  44  and  45;  "Praecipimus  tibi  (the  sheriff  of  Notting- 
ham) quod  justicies  milites  de  balliva  tua  quos  archiepiscopus  Ebora- 
censis  tenet  in  comitatu  tuo  de  dono  regis,  quod  sine  dilatione  red- 
dant  ballivis  ipsius  archiepiscopi  scutagium  suum,  scilicet,  duas 
marcas  de  scutagio"  (Madox,  I,  680,  n.  n).  The  archbishop  pays 
scutage  this  year  so  he  is  collecting  it  from  his  tenants  to  pay  at  the 
exchequer. 

*7  See  note  45. 

48  Pipe  Roll,  1  John.  See  also  the  account  in  Berks ;  the  sheriff 
accounts  for  £7  1m  of  earl  Ferrers,  2m  of  the  abbot  of  Hide,  etc. 

« "de  hiis  qui  non  habent  capitales  honores"  (Red  Book,  I,  100, 
104,  107). 

BO  "Isti  debent  respondere  de  scutagio  sed  vicecomes  nescit  quot 
feoda  habeant:  Comes  de  Ferrariis,  episcopus  Winton'"  (Pipe  Roll, 
1  John,  Essex  and  Hert.,  m.  13  d). 

«  Above,  note  44. 


UNDER  JOHN  AND  HENRY  III 

or  to  the  king  directly,  in  camera,  by  the  tenants 
in  chief  in  person,  or  by  their  representatives.52  Part 
they  paid  to  the  sheriff  who  accounted  for  it  at  the 
exchequer,  not  in  a  lump  sum,  but  with  the  amounts  due 
from  and  paid  by  each.53  In  some  cases,  the  sheriff  seems 
to  have  collected  from  the  rear-vassals.54  Sometimes  this 
may  have  been  done  after  an  arrangement  was  made  with 
the  lord.  At  any  rate,  the  royal  official  did  not  make  a 
general  collection  from  the  rear-vassals.  His  business 
was  with  the  tenant  in  chief.  Thus  he  collected  nothing, 
or  practically  nothing,  from  the  fees  of  tenants  who  had 
writs  of  quittance,  or  who  were  performing  their  service, 
though  the  latter  might  not  yet  have  received  their  writs 
of  exemption.55  In  the  cases  of  men  who  owed  fine  or 
scutage,  he  often  reported  fees  in  his  district  which 
belonged  to  them,  but  he  did  not  collect  the  money  and 

52  Ralph  Fitz  Stephen  accounts  for  20  marks,  the  balance  of  his 
fine;  "in  thesauro  nichil  et  G.  filio  Petri  xx  marc,  per  manum  Ricardi 
filii  Roberti  senescalli  ipsius  Radulfi  per  breve  regis"  (Pipe  Roll,  2 
John,  m.  1  d).     William  Fitz  Alan  "r  c  de  Ix  marcis  ne  transfretet 
cum  rege;  in  thesauro  nichil  et  ipsi  regi  in  camera  sua  Ix  marc,  de 
praedicto  fine  per  breve  regis"    (ibid.,   1  John,  Salop,  m.  6).     The 
sheriff  reports  the  names  of  tenants  who  had  promised  to  pay  at  the 
exchequer   and  who   failed   to   come:   "Hugo   de   Morba   senescallus 
Henrici  de  Trasci  affidavit  facere  pacem  de  L  marcis  et  dim.   de 
scutagio  suo  sicut  vicecomes  dicit  et  non  venit"  (Exchequer,  L.  T.  R., 
Bundle  1,  No.  3,  Mem.  Roll,  1  John,  m.  19  d) ;  "Senescallus  Hugonis 
Bard  cujus   nomen  vicecomes  nescit   affidavit   facere  pacem  de  iiii 
marcis   de   scutagio   suo   duorum   militum   et   non   venit"    (ibid.,  m. 
14  d) ;  see  also  cases  in  Staffordshire  (ibid.,  m.  14) ;  for  the  earl  of 
Clare  (ibid.,  m.  20  d).     The  Pipe  Roll  has  two  sorts  of  entries:  A 
(tenant)   r  c  de  y  marcis;  idem  vicecomes  r  c  de  y  marcis  de  A. 
This  difference  in  form  suggests  that  some  tenants  account  in  person 
or  through  their  steward  at  the  exchequer. 

53  Pipe  Roll,  1  John,  passim. 

54  E.g.   above,  notes  25,  47,  48 ;  the  sheriff  of  Northamptonshire 
accounts  for  10s  of  the  scutage  of  the  priory  of  Coventry  and  £4  of 
that  of  Gilbert  Gaunt  and  the  sums  are  paid   (Pipe  Roll,  1  John, 
Northamp.,  m.  2  d). 

55  Above,  note  25. 


STUDIES  IN  TAXATION 

it  is  stated  that  payment  was  made  in  another  bailiwick.56 
In  the  main,  he  was  to  supervise  the  levy  and  be  able  to 
render  a  statement  at  the  exchequer  concerning  all  the 
fees  which  were  liable  for  scutage  in  his  bailiwick.  One 
sheriff  had  been  remiss  in  his  duty.  A  list  of  thirteen 
tenants,  some  of  them  great  men  in  his  bailiwick,  is  given 
concerning  whom  he  had  made  no  report.  The  comment 
of  the  exchequer  barons  shows  what  he  was  expected  to 
do,  viz.,  either  to  collect  the  scutage  and  pay  it  at  the 
exchequer,  or  to  produce  the  writs  of  quittance,  or  to 
report  the  number  of  fees  for  which  each  tenant  owed 
scutage.57  He  also  aided  tenants  in  chief  to  collect 

5«  "Idem  vicecomes  xl  sol.  de  scutagio  feodorum  comitis  Alberici 
de  quibus  H.  Cantuariensis  archiepiscopus  debet  respondere  sicut 
vicecomes  dicit"  (Pipe  Roll,  1  John,  Northamp.,  m.  2  d) ;  William 
de  Erlega  "debet  ii  marcas;  sed  respondet  in  Berchscira  sicut  vice- 
comes  dicit"  (ibid.,  Dors,  and  Somers.,  m.  17  d) ;  Fulk  de  Alno 
"debet  ii  marcas  de  scutagio ;  sed  respondet  in  Wiltscira"  (ibid. ) ; 
the  bishop  of  Durham  "debet  xx  marc,  de  scutagio;  sed  respondet 
inde  in  Everwicscira"  (ibid.,  Line.,  m.  11).  When  an  honor  in  hand 
is  given  over  to  a  custodian,  the  latter  is  often  charged  with  and 
responds  for  the  scutage  and  in  doing  so  seems  to  be  acting  as  a 
tenant  in  chief;  thus  Alexander  de  Pointone  accounts  for  the  scutage 
of  the  honor  of  the  countess  of  Brittany  (ibid.,  2  John,  Line.,  m. 
6  d) ;  Nicholas  Poinz  for  the  honor  of  William  de  Mohun  (ibid.,  I 
and  2  John,  Dors,  and  Somers.). 

07  "Hii  omnes  invenientur  in  rotulo  anni  vii  annotati  inter  quietos 
de  primo  scutagio  regis  Ricardi  nee  vicecomes  aliquid  pro  eis  reddi- 
dit  nee  brevia  de  acquietantia  eorum  ostendit  nee  baronibus  (i.e. 
scaccarii)  certificavit  de  quot  feodis  debeant  respondere  in  his  comi- 
tatibus"  (Pipe  Roll,  1  John,  War.  and  Leic.,  m.  18  d;  Red  Book, 
I,  126,  with  slightly  different  wording).  The  collection  referred  to 
is  not  necessarily  from  rear-vassals.  In  the  Pipe  Roll  there  are 
occasional  references  that  the  sheriff  is  keeping  track  of  all  the  fees 
in  his  district;  the  sheriff  of  Kent  "r  c  de  xvii  marc,  de  scutagio 
militum  honoris  Peverelli  quos  invenire  potuit"  (Pipe  Roll,  1  John, 
m.  5  d)  ;  similarly  for  the  honor  of  Mortain  (ibid.,  Northamp.,  m. 
2  d) ;  William  Fitz  Martin  "r  c  de  xi  marc,  de  scutagio  sicut  vice- 
comes  dicit"  (ibid.,  Dors,  and  Somers.,  m.  17  d)  ;  cf.  John  Fitz  Rich- 
ard (ibid.)  ;  Adam  de  Tindale  (ibid.,  Northumb.,  m.  8  d)  ;  chapel  of 
Boseham  and  William  de  Kahaignes  (ibid.,  Suss.,  m.  9) ;  "idem 

30 


UNDER  JOHN  AND  HENRY  III 

scutage  from  their  vassals.58  If  a  baron  refused  to  pay 
his  scutage  or  fine,  he  might  be  distrained.59 

The  tallage  was  levied  on  the  king's  demesne  which 
included  the  towns  and  on  lands  in  hand.60  It  amounted 
to  about  5,500  marks.61  The  assessment  and  collection 
were  made  in  1199  and  1200.  Not  much  was  paid  there- 
after. The  work  of  assessment  was  done  in  part  by  the 
itinerant  justices  on  their  rounds.62  Some  of  the  towns 
compounded  in  a  lump  sum,  settling  the  incidence  of  the 
levy  themselves  and  responding  for  it  to  the  exchequer 
or  to  the  sheriff.  But  this  was  not  always  the  case. 
In  Northampton  the  justices  assessed  the  individual 
burghers.63  In  those  vills  or  lands  in  which  the  justices 
personally  made  the  assessment,  a  roll  of  the  persons 

vicecomes  ii  marc,  de  feodo  Alberici  de  Danmartin  de  quibus  comes 
Boloniae  debet  respondere  sicut  vicecomes  dicit"  (ibid.,  Norf.  and 
Suff.,  m.  20). 

58  Above,  note  46. 

59  "Idem    Henricus    (de    Pinkeni)    promisit    coram    justic'    quod 
acquietabit  averia  sua  que  capta  sunt  pro  scutagio;  recognovit  enim 
quod  idem  debet"   (Rot.  Cur.  Regis,  II,  43).     I  think  that  this  is 
probably  a  reference  to  the  scutage  of  1199;  at  any  rate  the  case 
is  entered  in  the  fall  of  this  year  and  illustrates  the  point  that  at 
this  time  distraint  is  in  use  to  enforce  payment  of  scutage.    "Walterus 
de  Cormeiles  debet  .c.  sol.  de  scutagio  suo  .ii.  marcarum;  vicecomes 
distringat  eum  de  .iiii.  marc,  et  de  .c.  sol."  (Exch.,  L.  T.  R.,  Bundle  1, 
No.  3,  Mem.  Roll,  1  John,  m.  14). 

60  London  does  not  appear  in  the  roll  of  any  year  charged  with 
this  tallage.     It  paid,  however,  £3,000  "pro  habenda  conflrmatione 
regis  de  libertatibus  suis"  (Pipe  Roll,  2  John,  m.  11)  and  the  tallage 
may  have  been  included  in  this  sum. 

61  The  following  counties  are  omitted:  Cant,  and  Hunt.,  Notts,  and 
Derby,  and  Lane. 

62  E.g.  in  Wigorn.,  the  tallage  wa!s  laid  by  the  abbot  of  Tewkesbury, 
the  archdeacon  of  Stafford,  and  Simon  de  Pateshull,  who  were  the 
justices  of  the  year  (Pipe  Roll,  1  John,  Wig.,  Oxf.,  m.  6  d,  16  d). 

63  "Homines  de  Norhanton'  r  c  de  Ix  Ii.  et  xviii  sol.  de  taillagio 
facto  per  G.  de   Norwiz  et  socios   suos   quorum  particulae  sunt  in 
rotulo  que  ipse  G.  liberavit  in  thesauro"  (ibid.,  2  John,  Northamp., 
m.  4  d). 

31 


STUDIES  IN  TAXATION 

and  the  amount  of  their  tallage  was  drawn  up  in  dupli- 
cate, one  copy  sent  to  the  exchequer  and  the  other  given 
to  the  sheriff  for  collection.64  Some  vills  had  a  lump  sum 
of  tallage  charged  against  them.65  The  first  assessment 
might  be  reduced  later  by  the  exchequer.  Winchester 
had  its  tallage  reduced  from  807m  to  400m.66  A  contri- 
bution was  exacted  from  some  religious  houses  called 
donum,  promissum,  or  tallagium.  Houses  which  held  by 
military  service  and  those  which  did  not  were  included. 
In  the  case  of  the  former,  the  contribution  was  a  payment 
in  addition  to  the  scutage.  The  abbot  of  Winchcomb  paid 
4m  scutage  and  30m  de  promisso;61  the  abbot  of  Evesham 
9m  scutage  and  50m  de  dono;*6  the  abbey  of  St.  Edward 
14m  scutage  and  20m  de  taillagio.™  The  amount  of  these 
contributions  was  868%  marks.  The  sums  were  assessed 
and  collected  by  the  itinerant  justices  and  the  sheriffs.70 
In  January,  1200,  John  and  Philip  Augustus  met  and 
made  a  treaty  of  peace.  By  it  the  king  of  England 
promised  20,000  marks  as  a  relief  for  his  lands  in  France.71 
To  raise  the  money  to  meet  this  promise,  an  auxilium  was 
taken  throughout  England  under  the  name  of  a  caru- 

«4  "De  t aillagio  facto  per  Ricardum  Malebisse  et  socios  suos ;  idem 
vicecomes  r  c  de  .  .  .  taillagiis  hominum  et  villarum  quorum  nomina 
annotantur  in  rotulo  que  prsedicti  (justices)  liberaverunt  in  the- 
sauro"  (ibid.,  York,  m.  8  d) ;  the  sheriff  accounts  for  a  total  of 
£4  16s  8d  charged  against  twelve  men,  who  are  named  (ibid.,  Kent, 
m.  15). 

«5/6tU,  1  John,  War.  and  Leic.,  m.  18  d;  2  John,  Westm.,  m.  2  d. 

«« Ibid.,  4  John,  Hants. 

«*  Pipe  Roll,  1  John,  Glouc.,  m.  3  d. 

«s  Ibid.,  Wigorn.,  m.  6  d. 

«9  Ibid.,  Dors,  and  Somers.,  m.  17  d. 

TO  "Promissa  abbatum  et  priorum  facta  regi  per  praedictos"  (i.e. 
Henry,  Archdeacon  of  Stafford,  William  de  Falesia,  and  their  com- 
panions) (ibid.,  Glouc.,  m.  3  d).  These  were  the  itinerant  justices. 

"  Rymer,  Fcedera,  etc.,  ed.  1816,  I,  80;  Hov.,  IV,  107;  Cogg.,  p.  101; 
Annales  Prioratus  de  Dunstaplia,  ed.  Luard,  Rolls  Series,  p.  27; 
the  last  three  sources  say  that  the  amount  was  30,000  marks. 

32 


UNDER  JOHN  AND  HENRY  III 

cage,72  a  tax  of  three  shillings  on  each  ploughland  under 
cultivation.73 

How  strict  an  assessment  was  made  cannot  be  stated. 
One  item  suggests  that  it  was  searching.  The  men  of 
Ketsteven  and  Holland  in  Lincolnshire  paid  £100  that 
the  carucage  be  taken  from  them  as  in  the  past,  viz., 
"5  carrucae  contra  2  carrucas  de  Lindeseia."7 '  The  exche- 
quer did  not  insist  on  an  assessment,  but  allowed  men  to 
compound  for  the  tax,  all  of  whom,  as  the  notices  of  com- 
position show,  were  of  the  clergy.  The  abbot  of  Furness 
gave  £100  for  the  renewal  of  his  charters  and  in  order 
to  be  quit  of  the  aid  of  the  carucage.75  The  abbot  of 
St.  Albans  paid  310  marks  for  his  charters  and  for 
exemption  from  the  carucage.76  Perhaps  the  churchmen 
usually  compounded;  the  annals  of  St.  Edmunds  say  that 
the  carucage  was  not  allowed  on  religious  houses,  but  that 

72  Rot.  Obi,  pp.  45,  55;  Walter  of  Coventry,  Memoriale,  ed.  Stubbs, 
Rolls    Series,    II,    158;    Hov.,    IV,    107;    "de    universitate    Angliae" 
(Madox,     I,     400,     n.     z) ;     "per     totam     Angliam"     (Liebermann, 
Ungedruckte    Anglo-Normannische    Oeschichts-quellen,    Annales    8. 
Edmundi,  p.  139). 

73  Cogg.,  ibid.     Hov.,  ibid.    Dunst.,  ibid.     Some  of  the  documents 
catalogued  as  Lay  Subsidies  at  the  Record  Office  record  an  assess- 
ment of  a  carucage  levied  at  three  shillings.     This  assessment  may 
refer  to  the  levy  of  1200,  for  the  rate  is  the  same.    It  may,  however, 
relate  to  the  tax  of  1198,  for  that  was  first  to  be  taken  at  three 
shillings  and  the  king  later  took  two  shillings  more.    This  assessment 
was    probably   based   on   the   land,    for   the    fractional   parts    which 
appear  are  not  easily  explainable  on  the  theory  that  it  was  based 
on  the  team:  quarta  pars  unius  car';  octava  pars  unius  car';  sexta 
pars  unius  car';  tercia  pars  unius  car'  (Lay  Subsidies,  Bundle  242, 
no.    113).      Sometimes,    however,    the    oxen    are    mentioned:    "apud 
Westone  viii  car'  et  quinque  boves";  "iiii  carr'  et  duos  boves"  (ibid., 
Bundle   73,   No.   la).     This   carucage   included   the   lands   of  priors, 
abbots,  bishops,  Templars,  and  churches:  de  elemosina  abbatis  Croil; 
de  feodo  episcopi  Lincoln'  xxix  car',  de  terra  ecclesiae  i  car';  etc. 

74  Madox,  I,  401,  n.  e. 

75  Rot.  Obi.,  p.  55. 

76  Rot.  Obi.,  p.  45;  Madox,  I,  400,  n.  z;  401,  n.  d. 


STUDIES  IN  TAXATION 

the  king  took  large  sums  from  the  bishops,  abbots,  and 
other  clergy.77 

The  tax  met  with  opposition.  The  archbishop  of  York 
refused  to  allow  his  lands  to  be  assessed.  His  refusal 
availed  nothing,  for  the  king  disseized  him.78  The  Cister- 
cians, who  had  a  general  immunity  from  taxation,  would 
not  pay  a  fine  for  the  carucage  without  the  consent  of 
their  order.  The  king  at  first  deprived  them  of  the  pro- 
tection of  the  courts,  but  was  finally  reconciled  with 
them.79  The  tax  was  collected  by  special  officials.80 
There  is  no  statement  about  the  machinery  of  assessment 
other  than  this  and  nothing  about  the  method  of  assess- 
ment. We  are  not  told  how  much  the  tax  yielded;  one 
writer  states  that  after  John  returned  to  France  in  April, 
he  paid  his  debt  to  Philip.81  As  the  money  could  not  have 
been  collected  at  that  time,  the  king  must  have  made  up 
the  sum  in  other  ways. 

War  between  the  Lusignans  and  John  broke  out  in 
March,  1201.  Writs  were  issued  summoning  the  host  to 
meet  at  Portsmouth  on  May  13  for  an  expedition  to 
Normandy.82  When  the  force  assembled,  many  were 
allowed  to  remain  at  home  ;83  with  the  rest,  which  included 
most  of  the  greater  barons,  the  king  crossed.8*  Besides 

"  Liebermann,  p.  139. 

78  Hov.,  IV,  140. 

™  Cogg.,  pp.  102-110. 

so  "servientes  regis"  (Hov.,  IV,  140);  "Willelmus  de  Wrotham  et 
socii  sui,  receptores  carrucagii"  (Rot.  Cane.,  p.  23). 

81  Cogg.,  p.  103.  The  king  received  some  of  it  in  August,  1200 
(Rotuli  Normannice,  ed.  Hardy,  Record  Com.,  p.  28).  In  September, 
1200,  he  received  8,000m  from  the  English  treasury,  not  necessarily 
from  the  carucage  (ibid.,  p.  36). 

szDiceto,  II,  172;  Hov.,  IV,  160. 

83  Hov.,  IV,  163. 

si  "Puis  s'en  revint  en  Normendie,  li  reis  o  tot  sa  baronie"  (His- 
toire  de  Guillaume  le  Martchal,  ed.  Paul  Meyer,  1.  12005).  If  the 
account  of  the  scutage  given  in  the  Pipe  Roll  is  at  all  complete,  just 

34 


UNDER  JOHN  AND  HENRY  III 

the  tenants,  the  army  included  mercenaries.85  This 
expedition  was  the  occasion  of  the  second  scutage  of  the 
reign,  although  there  seems  to  have  been  no  fighting  after 
John  arrived  in  France.88  It  was  accompanied  by  many 
fines  ne  transfretet,  which  till  1209  were  characteristic 
of  John's  scutages.  The  tax  was  determined  on  and  col- 
lection was  begun  before  the  departure  of  the  army  and 
not  at  the  close  of  the  campaign.  The  chroniclers  state 
that  when  the  barons  met  at  Portsmouth,  the  king  took 
from  some  of  them  the  money  which  they  would  spend  in 
his  service  and  allowed  them  to  return  home.87  Fines 
were  assessed  and  the  right  to  collect  scutage  from  rear- 
vassals  was  granted  by  the  king  to  tenants  in  chief  before 
the  host  gathered,  hence  the  scutage  must  have  been 
already  put  in  charge  as  the  rate  was  known.  Some 
tenants  compounded  for  their  service,  half  to  be  paid  on 
the  king's  departure  and  half  at  a  later  date.88  The  sheriff 
of  Somersetshire  was  to  collect  the  scutage  on  all  the 
fees  of  Fulk  Painel  and  have  it  at  Portsmouth  on  May  5 
with  the  writ.89 

about  half  of  the  feudal  service  of  England  was  represented  in  the 
host.  The  number  of  fees  which  compounded  is  not  over  3,250. 

85  "Et  (rex)  praemisit  in  Normanniam  Villelmum  Marescallum  .  .  . 
cum  centum  militibus  soldariis  et  Rogerum  de  Lasci,  .  .  .  cum  aliis 
centum  militibus,  ad  reprimendum  impetum  inimicorum  suorum  in 
finibus  Normanniae.  Et  rex  tradidit  Huberto  de  Burgo  .  .  .  centum 
milites,  et  constituit  eum  custodem  finium  Angliae  et  Valliae"  (Hov., 
above)  ;  "et  quater  viginti  libras  et  xiii  libras  et  v  solidos  ad  libera- 
tionem  Lupilionis  et  aliorum  balistorum  nostrorum  qui  transfretant 
nobiscum"  (Rotuli  de  Libtrate  ac  de  Misis,  ed.  Hardy,  Record  Com., 
p.  14). 

se  Hov.,  IV,  161,  164;  Norgate,  John  Lackland,  p.  81;  Adams, 
Political  History  of  England,  1066-1216,  p.  398. 

87Cov.,  II,  184;  Hov.,  IV,  163. 

88  Rot .  Obi,  pp.  127,  134,  135,  136,  137. 

89  Ibid.,  p.  131.    This  was  a  fine.    On  June  10,  the  king  pardoned 
Thomas  de  Burgh,  a  rear-vassal,  his  scutage  and  wrote  to  Geoffrey 
Fitz  Peter  as  follows:  "et  si  quid  de  feodis  ipsius  Thomas  captum 

35 


STUDIES  IN  TAXATION 


The  account  follows: 


Scutage  at  2  marks 


s 


Clerical  tenants     .... 
Thirty-six   lay   tenants    (each    5    or 

more  fees)90 
Lay  tenants  (each  fewer  than  5  fees, 

etc.)91  .... 

Total 


Clerical  tenants     . 
Fifty-seven  lay  tenants    (each 

more  fees)92 
Other  lay  tenants  (each  fewer 

5  fees,  etc.)93 

Total  .... 

Sergeants,  thegns,  drengs,  etc. 
Additional94 
Total  levied95 
Paid,  3  John 
Paid,  4  John 
Fees,  taxed,  not  over  8200. 


5   or 


than 


M 

717  5  4 

2090  7  11 

894  9  5 

8702  9  4 

Fines 

1200  5  8 

1988  0  0 

1401  0  8 

4539  6  4 

199  0  0 

56  0  0 

8497  2  4 

5321  10  5 

391  2  3 


Fees 
272 

625 

385 

1282 


Tenants  who  performed  their  service  were  acquitted 
of  scutage.  William  Earl  Marshal,  Warren  Fitz  Gerold, 
and  Robert  de  Tateshal  were  in  France  on  the  king's 

fuerit  de  scutagio  suo"  (Rot.  Lib.,  p.  15).  Hence  scutage  must  have 
been  put  in  charge  at  this  time. 

9°  Almost  all  are  tenants  in  chief. 

9i  Of  this  sum,  375m  are  on  honors  in  hand  and  127m  on  detached 
fees  of  great  barons,  leaving  about  392m  on  tenants  in  chief. 

»2  Of  these,  24  are  tenants  on  honors  in  hand  and  are  charged  with 
575m  fine  on  169  fees,  leaving  33  tenants  in  chief  charged  with  1,363m 
on  456  fees. 

93  Of  this  sum,  997m  are  charged  on  236  fees  on  honors  in  hand. 

94  Number  of  fees  unknown.    One  man  charged  with  20m  is  entered 
in  the  Fine  Roll  and  not  in  the  Pipe  Roll. 

95  Of  the  total  fine,  167m  are  charged  on  43  fees  which  are  entered 
in  the  Fine  Roll  and  not  in  the  Pipe  Roll. 

36 


UNDER  JOHN  AND  HENRY  III 

service  in  May;98  Robert  de  Turnham  and  the  earl  of 
Chester  were  there  in  September;97  Eustace  de  Vescy,  the 
earl  of  Albemarle,  the  constable  of  Chester,  Adam  de 
Novo  Mercato  (four  fees  of  the  honor  of  Tickhill),  Roger 
de  Valtort,  the  earl  of  Winchester,  and  Robert  de  Cardi- 
gan were  probably  in  France,  for  they  received  loans 
made  by  the  king  ultra  mare.98  All  these  received  writs 
of  quittance  of  their  scutage." 

About  half  of  the  clergy  paid  scutage.  Several  of 
the  chief  laymen  of  the  kingdom  were  also  charged  with 
it :  Hervey  Bagot,  60  fees ;  Ralph  de  Sumery,  50  fees  ;100 
the  earl  of  Clare,  about  140  fees;101  Walter  de  Lacy,  51/4 
fees;102  earl  Aubrey  de  Ver,  30%  fees;103  Richard  de 

Munfichet,  32  fees;104  Henry  de  Nonant,  55%%  fees;105 

• 

96  Rymer,  Foedera,  I,  83. 

97  Rot.  Litt.  Pat.,  p.  la. 

98  "De  praestitis  f actis  a  rege  ultra  mare" ;  the  names  and  sums 
follow  (Rot.  Cane.,  pp.  89,  94,  302-303).     Robert  de  Muscamp  also 
receives  a  loan  ultra  mare;  he  held  4  fees  in  Northumberland  for 
which  he  has  this  year  a  writ  of  quittance  (ibid.,  p.  65) ;  but  he  paid 
10m  fine  for  his  crossing  in  Notts,  and  Derby  (ibid.,  p.  318).     In  no 
other  year  is  he  entered  in  Notts,  and  Derby. 

99  Such  a  tenant  may  pay  part  of  his  scutage  either  on  a  detached 
fee,  or  because  the  sheriff  had  not  received  notice  concerning  the 
writ  of  quittance;  such  payments  are,  however,  too  small  to  show  that 
there  was  a  general  levy  on  the  rear-vassals,  e.g.  the  earl  of  Albe- 
marle paid  5m  in  War.  and  Leic.  and  16d  in  Norf.  and  Suff.  (Rot. 
Cane.,  pp.  13,  339).    None  of  the  other  barons  mentioned  in  the  text 
paid  anything.     When  the  tenant  is  apparently  performing  his  ser- 
vice, but  has  neglected  to  secure  his  writ  of  quittance,  he  is  charged 
with  scutage  in  the  roll,  but  he  does  not  necessarily  pay  anything, 
and  later  when  he  secures  the  writ  his  debt  is  crossed  off;  Robert 
Fitz  Walter  and  William  Malet  are  both  charged  with  scutage,  but 
no  payment  is  made.    A  note  is  added  "sed  postea  habuit  quietanciam 
per  breve"  (ibid.,  p.  162) ;  Hamo  de  Valoignes  (ibid.,  p.  87). 

100  Ibid.,  pp.  50,  51. 

101  Ibid.,  p.  338. 

102  ibid.,  p.  110. 

103  Ibid.,  p.  162. 

i°*  Ibid.     The  old   enfeoffment  was   47}£    fees   and   the   servitium 
debitum  40  fees  (Red  Book,  I,  351).    Why  he  pays  on  32  fees,  I  do 

37 


STUDIES  IN  TAXATION 

Robert  de  Albini,  25  fees.106  Thus  the  great  barons  were 
liable  for  scutage,  for  these  sums  were  not  merely  charged, 
but  were  partly  paid. 

Some  tenants  apparently  performed  part  of  their  ser- 
vice and  paid  for  the  rest.  This  is  probably  the  expla- 
nation of  cases  in  which  part  of  the  scutage  was  paid  and 
the  rest  pardoned.  Thus  half  of  the  scutage  of  Earl 
Ferrers  was  pardoned.107  Godfrey  de  Luvein  owed  181m 
for  the  honor  of  Eye,  of  which  he  paid  £67  10s  and  was 
pardoned  the  rest.10*  Henry  de  Nonant  owed  lllm  8s  lOd 
in  Devon;  he  paid  21m  11s  lid  and  was  pardoned  the 
remainder.105  A  case  which  seems  to  be  of  this  kind  comes 
from  the  honor  of  Gloucester.  The  custodian  still  owed 
six  and  a  half  marks  on  the  five  fees  of  Robert  de 
Gouiz  for  which  Robert  was  performing  his  service  in 
Normandy.110 

Only  a  few  of  the  great  vassals  fined  for  their  service  :ln 
Henry  de  Oilli,  97m  on  32%  fees;112  Simon  de  Beau- 
champ,  100m  on  45%%  fees;113  William  de  Longchamp, 

not  know.  It  is  not  a  mistake  of  the  clerk,  for  in  the  roll  of  1202, 
the  same  amount  is  repeated  with  partial  payment;  he  makes  a  pay- 
ment of  llm  in  1201  in  Norf.  and  Suff.  (Rot.  Cane.,  p.  339),  but  this 
is  included  in  the  charge  of  64m  (Pipe  Roll,  4  John,  Essex  and 
Hert.). 

105  Rot.  Cane.,  p.  26. 

loe  ibid.,  p.  355. 

107  Rot.  Cane.,  p.  319;  Pipe  Roll,  4  John,  Berks  and  War.  and  Leic. 

108  Pipe  Roll,  4  John  and  7  John,  Norf.  and  Suff. 
io9jRoj.  Cane.,  p.  26;  Pipe  Roll,  4  John,  Devon. 

no  "de  quibus  (6^m)  facit  servicium  in  Normannia"  (Rot.  Cane., 
p.  57).  The  other  3iXj  marks  were  evidently  paid,  for  in  4  John  this 
fee  paid  10  marks. 

in  It  might  be  suggested  that  the  fines  would  not  normally  be 
found  in  the  Pipe  Roll,  but  would  only  appear  in  the  Fine  Roll. 
This  is  not  so.  In  1201,  some  400  tenants  appear  in  the  Fine  Roll 
charged  with  fines  for  their  military  service;  all  but  30  of  these  are 
also  in  the  Pipe  Roll. 

112  Rot.  Cane.,  p.  279. 

"3  76»d.,  p.  354. 

38 


UNDER  JOHN  AND  HENRY  III 

60m  on  25  fees;114  Simon  de  Avranches,  60m  on 
fees;115  the  abbot  of  St.  Augustine,  40m  on  15  fees.116 
The  earl  of  Devon  fined  in  an  unusual  way:  he  allowed 
the  exchequer  to  collect  scutage  from  all  his  fees  whether 
or  not  they  owed  service  to  the  king,  thus  paying  30m  on 
15  fees  quos  recognoscit  and  90m  on  45  fees  quos  non 
recognoscit.117  For  tenants  holding  five  or  more  fees, 
the  rate  of  the  fine  per  fee  (including  scutage)  was  a  little 
more  than  three  marks.  The  extra  sum  over  and  above 
the  scutage  was  neither  an  equivalent  of  the  total  service 
of  the  holding,  nor  so  burdensome  that  the  tenant  would 
prefer  to  perform  his  service  in  the  field,  if  he  performed 
full  service.118 

The  lesser  tenants  (holding  385  fees)  bore  heavier  fines. 
The  average  rate  was  nearly  four  marks  per  fee,  or  almost 
double  what  the  scutage  would  have  amounted  to  and  in 
some  cases  the  rate  was  still  higher.  Simon  de  Kyme 
paid  10  marks  on  2  fees;119  Walter  de  Bolebec,  30  marks 
on  5  fees ;  and  Richard  de  Umfravill,  50  marks  on  2^/2 
fees.12C  Most  of  these  lesser  tenants  were  not  tenants  in 
chief,  but  rear-vassals  on  honors  in  hand.121  This  year 
the  tenant  usually  paid  a  lump  sum  as  a  fine  and  in 
return  performed  no  service  for  his  fee  and  was  allowed 

I"  Ibid.,  p.  191;  Rot.  Obi,  p.  152. 

us  Rot.  Cane.,  p.  220. 

n6/6tU,  p.  219;  Rot.  Obi,  p.  128. 

117  Rot.  Cane.,  p.  26.  This  formula  is  used  usually  of  ecclesiastical 
fees  only.  Fulk  Painel  made  a  similar  bargain:  "Fulco  Painel  dat 
domino  regi  scutagium  viite  militum  et  aliorum  militum  si  plures 
de  domino  rege  teneat  in  capite  pro  passagio  suo  et  passagio  praedic- 
torum  militum"  (Rot.  Obi,  p.  131). 

us  As  we  increase  the  average  holding,  the  rate  of  the  fine  dimin- 
ishes. On  tenants  holding  10  or  more  fees,  the  average  rate  of  the 
fine  is  under  3  marks  per  fee. 

us  Rot.  Cane.,  p.  192. 

120  Ibid.,  p.  64. 

121  See  above,  p.  36,  note  93. 

89 


STUDIES  IN  TAXATION 

to  collect  scutage  from  his  vassals.122  But  he  might  pay 
a  fine  for  his  crossing  in  addition  to  his  scutage.123 
Abbots  and  priors  paid  fines,  but  not  usually  the  bishops. 
The  bishopric  of  Lincoln  fined  this  year,  but  was  vacant  ;124 
the  bishop  of  Winchester  paid  a  fine  of  300  marks,  but 
in  return  he  also  obtained  certain  rights  enjoyed  by  his 
predecessors.125 

The  account  of  the  scutage  of  this  year  as  given  in 
the  Pipe  Roll  does  not  suggest  that  the  king  collected 
a  scutage  from  the  sub-tenants  of  those  tenants  who  per- 
formed their  service,128  so  that  the  scutage  was  not  a 

122  E.g.  "Nigellus  de  Luvetot  debet  L  marcas  ne  transfretet  et  pro 
habendo  scutagio  suo  de  xv  militibus"  (Rot.  Cane.,  p.  318). 

123  "Walterus  de  Cormeilles  r  c  de  xii  libris  de  fine  suo  ne  trans- 
fretet et  de  xii  libris  de  scutagio  suo"  (ibid.,  p.  110).     An  unusual 
sort  of  fine  was  one  at  a  fixed  rate  per  fee:  "Henricus  de  Oilli  r  c  de 
quater  xx  et  xvii  marcis  de  fine  que  fecit  scilicet  pro  quolibet  milite 
que  tenet  de  rege  iii  marcis"  (ibid.,  p.  279).    A  tenant  might  pay  a 
fine  larger  than  his  scutage  in  order  to  be  allowed  to  send  a  sub- 
stitute: "Radulfus  de  Cruminwell  dat  vi  marcas.     Tenet  feodum  i 
militis.     Si   filius   transfretat   dabit   nisi   iii   marcas;    sin   autem   vi 
marcas"  (Rot.  Obi.,  p.  153). 

12*  Rot.  Cane.,  p.  98. 

125  ibid.,  p.  211. 

126  See  above,  p.  36.     Thus  the  total  number  of  fees  taxed  is  not 
over  3,200,  leaving  about  3,000  at  least  who  are  not  charged  with  a 
tax  and  who  are  represented  by  the  lists  of  those  who  receive  writs 
of  quittance  in  each  county.    It  may  be  observed  that  the  great  bulk 
of  the  scutage  and  fine  are  charged  against  certain  men,  viz.,  clerical 
tenants  and  lay  tenants  holding  5  or  more  fees  who,  we  know,  are 
either  tenants  in  chief  or  tenants  on  honors  in  hand.     Now  the  only 
part  of  the  account  where  the  sub-tenants  of  those  tenants  in  chief 
who  have   received  writs  of  quittance  might  possibly  be   found   is 
in  the  two  groups  of  lay  tenants  holding  fewer  than  5  fees  each  and 
in  the  group  headed  "Additional."    The  total  amount  in  these  three 
groups   which  I  have  not  identified  with  honors  in  hand  will  not 
exceed  852m.     From  this  would  have  to  be  deducted  all  the  scutage 
levied  on  tenants  in  chief  who  hold  fewer  than  5  fees  each  and  some 
allowance  would  have  to  be  made  for  tenants  on  honors  in  hand  who 
have  not  been  identified.     The  remainder  would  be  far  too  small  to 
represent  anything  like  a  general  tax  on  the  rear-vassals  of  those 

40 


UNDER  JOHN  AND  HENRY  III 

general  tax,  but  retained  its  old  form  of  the  composition 
for  service.  Though  this  is  true,  yet  in  some  cases  the 
levy  was  collected  by  the  sheriff,  apparently  from  the 
rear-vassals.  That  official  accounted  for  11  Yz  marks  of 
the  scutage  of  the  Earl  Ferrers  in  Berks.127  The  sheriff  of 
Bucks  accounted  for  £8  10s  of  the  scutage  of  the  earl 
of  Clare,  3  marks  for  Henry  de  Oilli,  and  25s  4d  for  the 
count  of  Perche.128  Some  of  these  sums  may  have  been 
paid  to  the  sheriff  by  the  tenant  in  chief;  most  of  the 
amounts  were  small.  In  many  cases,  the  sheriff  did  not 
collect  from  the  sub-tenants.  He  took  little,  if  any,  from 
the  rear-vassals  of  those  tenants  who  served.129  Often 
the  charge  against  a  tenant  in  one  county  was  crossed 
off  with  the  statement  that  payment  was  made  in  another 
county.130  All  this  seems  to  indicate  that  the  royal  official 

tenants  in  chief  who  have  received  writs  of  quittance.  With  this 
statement  should  be  combined  the  evidence  given  above  that  the 
tenants  who  served  are  exempt  from  a  money  payment  and  the  further 
fact  that  the  tenants  who  fined  obtained  the  exemption  of  their 
whole  fee  from  paying  scutage  to  the  king  (see  above,  pp.  37,  39). 
All  this  points  to  the  conclusion  that  the  king  did  not  take  a  scutage 
from  the  rear-vassals  while  at  the  same  time  he  obtained  the  whole 
service  of  the  fee  from  the  tenant  in  chief,  either  by  a  money  fine 
or  by  a  quota  of  knights.  In  other  words  the  scutage  was  not  a 
general  tax,  but  was  the  composition  for  service,  though,  as  such,  it 
might  be  replaced  by  the  fine. 

127  R0t.  Cane.,  p.  263. 

128  Rot.  Cane.,  p.  355;  Henry  de  Oilli  is  quietus  in  War.  and  Leic. ; 
the  sheriff  accounts  for  him  for  8s  lOd  in  Staff.,  for  2m  in  Northamp., 
for  6s  8d  in  Berks,  for  3m  in  Bucks  and  Bedf.,  and  Henry  himself 
accounts  for  97m,  his  whole  charge,  in  Oxfordshire  (Rot.  Cane.,  pp. 
14,  51,  88,  262,  279,  355)  ;  Fulk  Painel,  5m  on  1  fee  "de  quibus  vice- 
comes  de  Sumersete  redidit  ii  marc,  in  Sumersate"   (ibid.,  p.  233) ; 
see  other  cases,  pp.  239,  262-263,  339,  355. 

129  See  above,  p.  37. 

130  "Galf  ridus  de  Paveilli  debet  x  li.  et  i  palef  ridum ;  sed  non  debet 
summoneri  quia  respondit  in  Norhantesira"  (Rot.  Cane.,  p.  317,  Notts, 
and  Derby) ;   Robert  de  Mara,  Lucia  de  Mohun,   Anselmus   Biset, 
Nigel  de  Luvetot  (ibid.,  pp.  44,  143,  220,  318).     He  may  be  charged 
with  scutage  and  the  charge  written  off  with  the  statement  that  the 

41 


STUDIES  IN  TAXATION 

dealt  with  the  tenant  in  chief  rather  than  with  the  sub- 
tenant. But  the  rear-vassal  ultimately  paid  the  scutage. 
Both  the  barons  who  fined  and  those  who  paid  scutage 
obtained  the  right  to  collect  the  tax  from  their  tenants, 
given  them  by  the  writ  de  scutagio  habendo.131  A  further 
indication  of  the  same  thing  is  that  tenants  rendered  their 
accounts  in  more  than  one  county.132  This  does  not  mean 
that  the  rear-vassal  was  responsible  to  the  exchequer  for 
the  scutage.  The  debt  to  the  king  was  not  his  debt,  but 
his  lord's  and  it  was  the  lord's  name  that  appeared  regu- 
larly in  the  roll.  When  the  sub-tenant  is  found  charged 
with  fine  or  scutage,  it  means  probably  that  the  honor 
was  in  hand  and  that  the  tenants  were  treated  for  the 
time  as  immediate  vassals  of  the  king.133  The  rear-vassal 

tenant  has  a  quittance  in  another  county:  William  de  Windsor,  Rich- 
ard Fitz  Nigel,  Warren  Fitz  Gerold  (ibid.,  pp.  209,  354).  The  fine 
of  the  earl  of  Devon  illustrates  the  point  that  the  sheriff  ordinarily 
did  not  collect  from  the  rear-vassals;  he  fined  under  the  conditions 
that  no  scutage  was  to  be  demanded  of  him  personally,  but  that  the 
king  should  take  scutage  from  all  his  knights.  "A  Willelmo  comite 
de  Vernun  nullum  scutagium  requirendum  est  in  aliqua  summa  quia 
finivit  cum  rege  pro  licentia  remanendi  ut  rex  capiat  de  omnibus 
militibus  suis  scutagium  suum  quos  tenet  de  rege  in  capite"  (ibid., 
p.  263) ;  cf.  Fulk  Painel,  Rot.  Obi,  p.  131.  The  earl  therefore  paid 
on  15  fees  of  his  servitium  debitum  and  on  45  fees  of  new  enfeoffment 
(ibid.,  p.  26).  The  fact  that  the  sheriff  collects  from  the  sub-tenants 
seems  to  be  unusual  as  well  as  the  fact  that  the  earl  pays  on  the 
extra  fees.  This  was  not  the  first  time  that  the  earl  had  made  such 
a  payment  (Red  Book,  I,  88). 

131  See  above,  notes  122,  123.    I  have  found  no  writ  this  year  grant- 
ing a  tenant  in  chief  who  pays  only  scutage  the  right  to  collect  it 
from  his  vassals.     That  such  was  the  case,  however,  is   shown  by 
the  fact  that  if  a  rear-vassal  was  pardoned  his  scutage  by  the  king, 
that  amount  was  deducted   from  the  scutage  of  his  lord.     Thomas 
de  Burgo  holds  2^  fees  of  both  Aubrey  de  Ver  and  of  the  abbot 
of  St.  Edmunds,  both  of  whom  pay  scutage  only  this  year;  he  is 
pardoned   the   10m   due    (Rot.  Lib.,  p.   15) ;   and  his   lords   likewise 
(Rot.  Cane.,  pp.  162,  337). 

132  See  above,  note  128. 

isa  Thus  the  tenants  on  great  honors  like  that  of  Gloucester  appear 
in  the  roll;  cf.  the  entry  of  Adam  de  Port's  fee  (Rot.  Obi,  p.  145); 

42 


UNDER  JOHN  AND  HENRY  III 

on  an  honor  in  hand  should  have  paid  the  king  what  he 
paid  his  lord.  If  the  tenant  in  chief  had  enfeoffed  more 
knights  than  his  servitium  debitum,  he  collected  from  them 
all.134  When  the  honor  fell  into  the  king's  hand,  the  latter 
did  likewise.135  The  rear- vassal  was  not  responsible  for 
the  fine.  The  king  granted  his  lord  permission  to  collect 
scutage  only.13*  From  tenants  on  honors  in  hand,  how- 
ever, John  exacted  fines  which  were  larger  than  the 
scutage,  as  though  they  were  tenants  in  chief.131 

The  king  could  not  at  will  collect  from  a  tenant  in  chief 
from  a  larger  number  of  fees  than  the  tenant  was  accus- 
tomed to  respond  for.  The  law  of  the  land  was  a  pro- 
tection. Some  dispute  arose  over  the  amount  of  service 
owed  by  Gerard  de  Canvill  in  Oxfordshire;  an  inquest 

the  knights  of  the  honor  of  Walter  de  Dunstanvill  appear  in  the 
roll  "de  furious  militum  ne  trans fretent"  (Rot.  Cane.,  p.  233),  but 
the  honor  was  in  hand:  "de  remanenti  firmae  terrarum  Walter!  de 
Dunestanvill'  de  anno  praeterito"  (ibid.,  p.  224).  There  are  excep- 
tions to  this,  e.g.  the  tenants  of  Sibilla  de  Fesnes  (ibid.,  p.  162); 
but  two  cases  show  that  such  appearance  was  not  the  rule.  William 
Luvel  was  a  tenant  of  the  earl  of  Leicester;  he  gave  20m  and  a 
palfrey  for  his  crossing  and  "pro  habendis  litteris  domini  regis  depre- 
catoriis  ad  regem  Franc' "  (Rot.  Obi.,  p.  144)  ;  he  thus  had  some 
special  privilege  to  gain.  His  payment  this  year  led  to  his  being 
charged  with  scutage  in  1202,  but  it  was  crossed  off  because  he  held 
of  the  earl  of  Leicester  (see  below,  p.  52,  note  186).  The  following 
extract  needs  no  comment:  "Willelmus  de  Lumeneye  dat  3m  qui 
nichil  tenet  de  domino  rege  in  capite  et  qui  summonitus  fuit  ad  trans- 
fretandum  per  sic  quod  dominus  rex  non  habeat  malam  voluntatem 
erga  ipsum  eo  quod  non  transfretet  secum  et  faciat  servicium  suum 
quod  facere  debet  Mabilie  de  Soliis  de  qua  tenet"  (Rot.  Obi.,  p.  135)  ; 
cf.  William  de  Lond'  (ibid.,  p.  145). 

is*  Chron.,  Joe.  de  Brak.,  pp.  48-49. 

iss  The  bishopric  of  Lincoln  which  was  in  hand  paid  on  102^  fees 
instead  of  on  60  fees  (Rot.  Cane.,  p.  98). 

136  See  above,  p.  40,  note  122;  "et  mandatum  est  justic'  quod  eidem 
episcopo   faciat   habere   scutagium   suum   de   militibus    suis,    scilicet, 
de   scuto,  duas  marcas"    (Rot.   Obi,  pp.   156-157);   the   same   as   to 
John  de  Hastings  and  William  de  Muntcheney  (ibid.,  p.  128). 

137  See  above,  p.  36,  notes  92,  93. 

43 


STUDIES  IN  TAXATION 

was  held  in  the  county  court  by  knights  of  the  county 
who  determined  the  amount  of  service  as  that  of  one  fee 
only  in  that  county.138  What  seems  to  be  evidence  that 
the  exchequer  was  trying  to  obtain  a  more  exact  account 
of  the  number  of  fees  held  by  each  of  the  king's  vassals 
is  suggested  by  the  frequent  statement  that  "x  tenet  y 
feoda,  sicut  dicit,"  or  "sicut  vicecomes  dicit."1  There 
is  no  evidence  as  to  how  the  scutage  was  put  in  charge. 
The  fines  were  assessed  partly  at  the  meeting  of  the  host 
and  partly  by  special  justices,  perhaps  the  itinerant 
justices  on  their  rounds.140  Some  of  the  fines  were  laid 
before  the  host  met.141  Some  of  the  tenants  in  chief 
accounted  for  their  scutage  or  fine  at  the  exchequer  or 
in  camera,  in  person  or  by  a  representative;  some  paid 
it  to  the  sheriff  who  rendered  the  account  at  the  exche- 
quer.142 Some  of  the  fines  were  this  year  brought  to 
Portsmouth  when  the  king  sailed. 

iss  "non  debet  respondere  nisi  ad  feodum  1  militis  sicut  inquisitum 
fuit  per  milites  comitatus"  (Rot.  Cane.,  p.  279).  The  total  service 
of  Gerard  was  sixteen  fees. 

139  "Rogerus  de  Sumeri  dat  domino  regi  c  marcas  pro  transf reta- 
tione  sua.     Tenet  feoda  L  militum  in  capite  et  non  plus  ut  dicit" 
(Rot.  Obi.,  p.  146) ;  "Comes  de  Clare  vicecomes  pro  eo  r  c  de  xiii 
libris  de  scutagio,  scilicet,  de  ix  feodis  et  dimid'  et  quarta  parte 
feodi  i  militis  que  praedictus  comes  habet  in  Surreia  sicut  vicecomes 
dicit"  (Rot.  Cane.,  p.  32). 

140  Hov.,  IV,   160-161;  "de  scutagio  militum  .  .  .  quorum  nomina 
et   debita   annotantur   in    rotulo    que   magister    Radulfus    de   Stoke 
liberavit  in  thesauro  ex  parte  justic'  de  finibus  militum  ne  trans- 
fretent"  (Rot.  Cane.,  p.  233) ;  "Cecilia  comitissa  Herefordiae  r  c  de  xl 
marcis  per  quas  finivit  sicut  recordatum  est  per  justiciarium  pro 
habendo  scutagio  suo  et  pro  passagio  suo"  (Madox,  I,  676,  n.  y). 

Hi  E.g.  Fulk  Painel,  Giffard  Whiting  (Rot.  Obi.,  pp.  131,  136). 

1*2  The  roll  has  two  sorts  of  entries:  A  (tenant)  r  c  de  y  marcis; 
idem  vicecomes  r  c  de  y  marcis  de  B  (tenant).  The  difference  seems 
to  be  intentional,  for  the  first  form  may  appear:  A  vicecomes  pro 
eo  r  c  etc.  (Rot.  Cane.,  p.  32).  Again,  the  tenant  may  account  and 
yet  the  payment  be  made  at  the  exchequer  by  the  sheriff,  but  in 
that  case,  the  roll  sometimes  states  the  fact:  Henry  de  Oilli  "r  c  etc.; 
in  thesauro  xxiii  li.  et  vi  sol.  et  ix  den.  per  manum  vicecomitis"  (ibid., 

44 


UNDER  JOHN  AND  HENRY  III 

Some  notices  of  a  tallage  appear,  but  there  was  no 
general  levy.  The  bishopric  of  Lincoln,  in  hand,  was 
charged  with  £522  5s  2d  of  tallage.143  In  Yorkshire, 
379m  6s  6d  of  tallage  were  charged,  100  marks  of  which 
fell  on  the  city  of  York,  60  marks  on  Scarborough,  15 
marks  on  Richmond,  and  the  rest  on  persons.144  The  men 
who  were  charged  with  tallage  held  of  the  king;  others 
were  not  liable.141  The  assessment  was  made  by  the 
itinerant  justices.148  An  aid  of  some  sort  was  collected 
this  year  from  the  men  of  the  Channel  Islands,  no  matter 
of  whom  they  held.  It  is  of  interest  because  of  the  way 
in  which  the  assessment  was  made,  viz.,  by  four  legal 
knights  of  the  islands.147 

In  1201  a  fortieth  of  revenues  for  one  year  was  levied 
for  the  Holy  Land.148  Churchmen  paid  it  on  their  spir- 
itualities and  temporalities  by  order  of  the  pope;  each 
bishop  had  charge  of  the  collection  from  the  clergy  of 
his  diocese.  The  king  granted  a  fortieth  of  the  revenues 
of  his  demesne,  his  escheats,  wardships,  and  lands  in  hand 
and  he  asked  the  earls,  barons,  knights,  and  freemen  to 
contribute.  The  first  three  classes  were  to  pay  a  fortieth 
of  the  annual  value  of  each  vill  held  by  them  in  whole  or 

p.  279) ;  cf.  the  cases  of  the  Sari  of  Clare  and  Aubrey  de  Ver  (ibid., 
pp.  162,  338).  However,  the  tenant  who  is  said  by  the  roll  to  account 
for  his  scutage  does  not  always  do  so;  see  the  cases  of  the  earl  of 
Devon  and  Fiilk  Painel  (ibid.,  pp.  26,  207,  263;  Rot.  Obi.,  p.  131). 
As  to  payment  in  camera,  see  the  bishop  of  Norwich  (Rot.  Cane.,  p. 
338).  The  fines  which  were  to  be  brought  to  Portsmouth  when  the 
king  sailed  would  be  paid  in  camera  (see  above,  note  141). 

i«  Rot.  Cane.,  pp.  96-97. 

i**  Ibid.,  p.  297 ;  other  notices  of  a  tallage,  pp.  255,  337. 

145  "Rogerus  de  Schipton'  c  sol.  de  eodem  [taillagio],  sed  non  debent 
exigi  quia  per  inquisicionem  factam  percepto  justic'  nichil  tenet  de 
rege"  (ibid.,  p.  297). 

"6  Ibid. 

i*7  Rot.  Lift.  Pat.,  p.  3a. 

1*8  Hov.,  IV,  187;  Wend.,  Ill,  167;  Rot.  Litt.  Pat.,  p.  5a;  Diceto, 
II,  169;  Cogg.,  pp.  115-117. 

45 


STUDIES  IN  TAXATION 

in  part,  based  on  an  estimate  of  what  it  would  yield  if 
farmed.  The  freemen  were  to  pay  a  sum  equal  to  the 
fortieth  of  the  annual  rent  owed  to  their  lords.  There 
was  no  assessment  by  the  royal  officials.  Each  man  cal- 
culated the  amount  of  his  contribution.  The  sheriff 
appointed  discreet  and  legal  men  to  receive  it.  A  roll 
was  drawn  up  by  the  collectors,  arranged  by  vills;  it 
contained  the  names  of  the  contributors  and  the  amount 
paid  by  each.  The  royal  demesne  was  enrolled  separately. 
If  anyone  refused  to  pay,  his  name  was  reported  to  the 
king.14J  Assessed  and  collected  in  this  way,  the  tax  could 
not  have  been  very  productive,  but  it  should  be  noted  as 
an  experiment  in  taxation.  The  detailed  account  which 
was  enrolled  and  the  use  of  some  local  machinery  of 
collection  are  of  interest. 

THE  TAXATION  OF  1202 

The  occasion  for  new  taxation  was  the  war  between 
John  and  Philip  Augustus  which  had  broken  out  again 
in  the  spring  of  1202.  No  writ  exists  of  a  general  sum- 
mons to  the  host,  but  in  April  the  barons  of  the  Cinque 
Ports  were  ordered  to  place  their  ships  at  the  command 
of  Hubert  de  Burgh,  probably  to  bring  forces  from 
England,150  and  in  May  Flemish  knights  who  held  feoda 
of  John  were  summoned  to  perform  their  service.153 
Others  were  summoned  who  were  to  receive  wages.152  Sev- 

1*9  Hov.,  IV,  188-189;  the  royal  contribution  is  given  in  the  Pipe 
Roll  (William  Salt,  etc.,  II,  108,  112). 
iso  Rot.  Litt.  Pat.,  p.  9b. 

151  Ibid.,  p.  lib. 

152  ibid.,  p.  lOa,  12a;  Pipe  Roll,  4  John,  Suss.,  Wilts,  m.  9d;  pay- 
ment of  mercenaries  is  also  mentioned  in  Rot.  Norm.,  pp.  47,  53,  55. 
The  king  was  well  provided  with  money.    He  acknowledges  the  receipt 
of  7,000m  from  England  on  June  12  and  on  June  17  is  providing 
transport  for  treasure  from  England   (ibid.,  pp.  49,  51);  at  the  end 
of  the  month,  he  acknowledges  the  receipt  of  2,000m  (Rot.  Lift.  Pat., 
p.  13a). 

46 


UNDER  JOHN  AND  HENRY  III 

eral  of  the  English  barons  were  serving  with  the  king: 
the  earl  of  Albemarle  and  Robert  de  Tresgoz;153  Roger 
de  Tony,  William  de  Roches  and  the  earl  of  Chester;154 
William  Earl  Marshal,  William  de  Braose,155  William 
Briwerre,  the  earl  of  Salisbury,  the  earl  of  Leicester,  the 
earl  of  Arundel,  and  Geoffrey  de  Say.15f  It  seems  prob- 
able therefore  that  a  general  summons  was  issued.  For 
this  campaign  a  scutage  was  levied  and  in  some  counties 
there  are  notices  of  a  tallage.157 

The  levy  appears  in  the  Michaelmas  roll  of  1202  and 
was  partly  paid  when  the  roll  was  made  up.  The  scutage 
was  levied  at  two  marks  per  fee,  the  rate  which  had  now 
become  usual.  The  account  follows : 

Scutage  at  2  marks. 

M  s  d 

Clerical  tenants      ....        829  5  4 
Seventeen    lay   tenants    (each    5    or 

more  fees)       ....        489  8  8 
Other  lay  tenants  (each  fewer  than  5 

fees,  etc.)158              •          •          •        709  10  4 

Total 2028  11  0 

iss  Rot.  Litt.  Pat.,  p.  12. 

154  Ibid.,  p.  8a. 

^55  ibid.,  p.  19a. 

156  Ibid.,  p.  19b. 

"7  There  are  notices  of  this  in  8  counties,  amounting  to  about 
SOO  marks.  Sometimes  the  tallage  is  mixed  with  amercements  so 
that  it  is  impossible  to  tell  how  much  it  amounted  to.  These  sums 
have  not  been  included.  Such  composite  accounts  probably  occur 
because  the  tallage  was  levied  by  the  itinerant  justices  and  was 
reported  by  them  with  the  amercements;  e.g.  "De  ammerciamentis 
et  taillagiis  maneriorum  regis  in  Berchscira  factis  per  Galfridum 
filium  Petri  et  Ricardum  de  Heriet  et  socios  suos.  Idem  vicecomes 
r  c  de  c  li.  et  xvi  d  de  praedictis  misericordiis  et  taillagiis  hominum 
quorum  nomina  et  debita  et  causae  debitorum  annotantur  in  rotulo 
que  praedicti  liberaverunt  in  thesauro"  (Pipe  Roll,  4  John,  Berks, 
m.  1  d). 

iss  127m  are  on  honors  in  hand  like  Peverel,  Wallingford,  Lancas- 

47 


STUDIES  IN  TAXATION 

Fines  Fees 

Clerical  tenants     ....  362     00             98 
Thirty-nine  lay  tenants    (each  5   or 

more  fees)159            .          .          .  1611     3     4           569 
Lay  tenants  (each  fewer  than  5  fees, 

etc.)160             .          .          .          .  1892     2     6           303 

Total 3865     5    10            970 

Sergeants 202     3     4 

Additional161           .          .          .          .  122  13     0 

Total  charged        .          .          .          .  6219     6     6 

Paid,  4  and  5  John         .          .          .  4418     1     9 
Fees  taxed,  not  over  2100. 

The  bulk  of  the  scutage  proper  fell  on  the  prelates  and 
the  greater  lay  tenants.  The  laymen  holding  more  than 
20  fees  and  charged  with  scutage  were:  Simon  de 
Avranches,  43m;162  Walter  de  Lacy,  102M»m;163  Guido  de 
Laval  20  fees  ;164  William  Fitz  Alan  271/2  fees.185  A  little 
more  than  half  of  the  church  fees  paid  the  scutage  proper. 
Tenants  who  performed  their  service  in  the  field  were 
exempted  from  any  payment.  All  the  barons  mentioned 
above  had  writs  of  quittance.  In  some  cases  the  roll 
states  that  the  tenant  was  exempt  from  scutage  on  account 
of  service  performed  in  person  or  by  deputy.166 

ter,  Tickhill,  Brittany,  and  Gloucester.  85m  are  on  detached  fees 
of  great  baronies,  not  in  hand.  This  leaves  not  more  than  500m 
on  lesser  tenants  in  chief. 

i<5»  In  this  case,  17  men  holding  188  fees  are  charged  with  558m 
fine  who  hold  of  honors  in  hand,  leaving  22  tenants  in  chief  who 
are  charged  with  1,053m  on  381  fees. 

i«o  In  this  case,  977m  are  charged  against  209  fees  on  honors  in 
hand. 

161  Number  of  fees  unknown. 

162  Pipe  Roll,  4  John,  Kent,  m.  15  d. 

163  Ibid.,  Hereford,  m.  19  d. 
i6*/6fd.,  4  John,  York,  m.  5. 

165  Ibid.,  Salop,  m.  3  d. 

166  Richard  de  Munfichet  is  quit  "quia  est  in  servicio  regis";  also 
Warren  Fitz  Gerold  and  others   (ibid.,  Essex  and  Herts,  m.  19  d)  ; 

48 


UNDER  JOHN  AND  HENRY  III 

Only  three  of  the  clergy  paid  fines :  the  abbot  of  Sher- 
burne,  20m  on  2%  fees ;  the  abbess  of  St.  Edward,  50m  on 
7  fees  and  the  abbot  of  Michelney,  10m  on  1  fee.167  The 
tenants  of  the  abbey  of  Ramsey  and  of  the  bishopric  of 
Lincoln  fined,  but  both  honors  were  in  hand.168  Of  the 
laymen,  three  great  lords  fined:  the  earl  of  Warwick,  20m 
and  the  scutage  on  his  102%  fees  ;169  Hervey  Bagot,  20m 
and  his  scutage  on  60  fees;170  and  Robert  de  Cardinan, 
120m  on  71  fees  of  the  honor  of  Mortain.171  The  average 
rate  per  fee  for  the  larger  holdings  (five  fees  each)  was 
about  three  marks  (though  the  fine  was  not  reckoned  at 
so  much  per  fee).172  The  lesser  tenants  paid  heavier 
fines,  the  average  rate  being  over  six  marks  per  fee.  But 
there  was  no  fixed  rate;  William  de  Nova  Mercato  paid 
50m  on  17%/4  fees;173  Robert  de  Muschans,  50m  on  4s 
fees.174  Most  of  the  fines  were  lump  sums  for  service  and 
scutage.  Sometimes  the  fine  and  scutage  were  separate; 
the  tenant  paid  his  scutage  and  in  addition  a  fine  pro 
passagio,  ne  transfretet.  The  latter  was  apparently  for 
his  personal  service  and  for  the  scutage  of  his  demesne.175 
In  such  cases  the  fine  was  not  large  enough  to  represent 
the  service  of  the  whole  holding. 

Brian  Fitz  Ralph  is  quit  "per  militem  que  misit  ultra  mare"  (ibid., 
Norf.  and  Suff.,  m.  8  d).  As  he  held  5  fees,  he  was  thus  exempt 
from  scutage  by  performing  only  part  of  his  service. 

i«7  Ibid.,  Dors,  and  Somers.,  m.  7  d. 

168  Ibid.,  Cant,  and  Hunt.,  m.  10  d,  m.  20;  Cart,  Mon.  de  Rameseia, 
I,  227. 

IBS  Pipe  Roll,  War.  and  Leic.,  m.  3  d. 

no  Ibid.,  Staff. 

i71  Ibid.,  Corn.,  m.  12  d.  These  fees  paid  scutage  at  %  the  regular 
rate,  so  that  the  scutage  would  have  been  88%m. 

i"  On  tenants  holding  10  or  more  fees  each,  the  rate  is  about 
2i/£m  per  fee,  the  fine  including  scutage. 

1?3  Pipe  Roll,  4  John,  Dors,  and  Somers.,  m.  7  d. 

n*Ibid.,  Northumb.,  m.  14  d. 

!75  See  the  earl  of  Warwick  and  Hervey  Bagot  above;  "Willelmus 
filius  Ricardi  .  .  .  r  c  de  15m  de  scutagio  .  .  .  et  de  5m  de  fine  suo 

49 


STUDIES  IN  TAXATION 

The  king  did  not  as  a  rule  take  scutage  from  the  rear- 
vassals  while  he  obtained  the  whole  service  of  the  fief  either 
in  money  or  knights  from  the  tenant  in  chief,  that  is,  the 
scutage  was  not  a  general  tax  levied  in  addition  to  service 
in  the  host,  or  a  money  equivalent.176  We  may  take  first 
the  case  of  the  tenant  who  performed  his  service  with  the 
host.  He  obtained  a  writ  of  quittance  which  exempted 
from  paying  scutage  to  the  exchequer  not  only  his 
demesne  but  also  the  lands  which  he  had  enfeoffed.  Thus 
his  writ  was  entered  in  the  roll  in  all  counties  where  his 
lands  lay.177  Some  tenants,  however,  who  were  evidently 
performing  service  did  not  receive  their  writs  of  quittance 
till  after  the  sheriff  had  rendered  his  account  of  the  year 
at  the  exchequer  and  the  roll  had  been  drawn  up.  From 
some  of  these  men  part  of  their  scutage  was  collected. 
Philip  de  Colombiers  paid  eight  shillings  out  of  twenty 
marks,  then  obtained  his  writ  of  quittance  and  the  remain- 
der of  the  debt  was  cancelled.178  Robert  Fitz  Payn  paid 
one  mark  out  of  thirty  and  then  was  acquitted  the  balance. 
The  earl  of  Devon  paid  six  marks  in  Dorset  and  Somerset- 
shire and  was  acquitted  the  rest.178  In  this  last  bailiwick, 
the  rear- vassals  paid  the  sheriff  £20  13s  before  the  writs 
of  quittance  of  their  lords  arrived.180  Yet  it  will  be  noticed 
that  the  amounts  thus  paid  were  small.  Furthermore, 

pro  passagio  et  pro  scutagio  de  dominico  suo"  (ibid.,  Northamp., 
m.  11  d);  Richard  Foliot  (ibid.). 

i™  It  may  be  observed  at  the  outset  that  only  about  2,100  fees  were 
taxed  this  year. 

i"  The  earl  of  Leicester  has  quittance  in  ten  bailiwicks.  It  should 
be  remembered  that  rear-vassals  do  not  appear  in  the  roll  unless  the 
honor  is  in  hand.  Consequently  when  the  tenant  in  chief  is  thus 
returned  as  quit,  none  of  his  land  pays  scutage  to  the  king. 

ITS  "Philippus  de  Columbieres  rcdexxm.de  feodis  x  militum.  In 
thesauro  nichil  et  Galfrido  filio  Petri  viii  s.  .  .  .  et  debet  xix  marc, 
et  v  sol.  et  iiii  den.  Sed  habet  quietanciam  per  breve  regis"  (Pipe 
Roll,  4  John,  m.  7  d). 

170  Jbid.,  and  m.  18  d. 

iso  "De   scutagiis   militum   tenentium   de   pluribus   baronibus   quae 

50 


UNDER  JOHN  AND  HENRY  III 

they  might  be  returned  by  the  sheriff.183  Other  tenants 
in  the  same  circumstances  paid  nothing  at  all  and  later 
when  their  writs  of  quittance  were  received,  their  debts 
were  cancelled  in  the  roll.182  The  tenant  who  had  not 
performed  his  service  and  paid  a  fine  or  scutage  some- 
times paid  part  of  it  to  the  sheriff  of  the  county  contain- 
ing the  head  of  his  barony  and  part  to  the  sheriffs  of 
other  counties  where  his  land  lay.  This  may  mean  that 
sometimes  the  royal  official  collected  from  the  rear- 
vassals. 18:  In  other  cases,  the  tenant  in  chief  accounted 
for  his  fine  or  scutage  in  one  county  and  was  entered  as 
acquitted  in  the  other  counties  where  he  held  fees.184  The 
sheriff  also  reported  fees  in  his  bailiwick,  but  stated  that 
the  payment  was  made  in  other  counties.185  Occasionally 

capta  fuerunt  antequam  brevia  de  quietantia  scutagiorum  baronum 
illorum  pervenirent  ad  vicecomitem.  Idem  vicecomes  r  c  de  xx  li. 
et  xiii  sol.  etc."  It  was  all  paid  into  the  treasury  (ibid.,  m.  7  d). 

isi  The  earl  of  Devon  had  his  six  marks  returned  to  him  by  the 
sheriff:  "et  comiti  Willelmo  de  Vernun  iiii  li.  pro  iiii  li.  quas  recepit 
(vicecomes)  ab  eo  de  tercio  scutagio  regis"  (Pipe  Roll,  5  John,  m.  12). 

182  "Willelmus  filius  Martini  debet  xxx  marc,  de  fine  suo  pro  x 
militibus  et  dim.  Sed  postea  habuit  quietanciam  per  breve  Galfridi 
filii  Petri"  (ibid.,  4  John,  m.  7  d) ;  Robert  de  Seccheville  (ibid., 
Devon,  m.  18  d)  ;  John  Fitz  Hugh  (ibid.,  Berks,  m.  1  d). 

isa  Walter  de  Lacy  owed  102^  marks ;  he  paid  in  1202  thirty 
marks  in  Hereford,  two  marks  in  Berks,  £13  7s  7d  in  Gloucestershire 
"quos  vicecomes  potuit  invenire  in  hoc  comitatu,"  was  charged  with 
five  marks  in  Oxfordshire  and  the  sheriff  of  Salop  accounted  for 
20  marks  on  10  fees  of  Walter  "in  hoc  comitatu  sicut  vicecomes 
dicit,"  of  which  10  marks  were  paid  in  1202  (Pipe  Roll,  4  John)  ; 
the  earl  of  Warwick,  4  marks  in  Northamptonshire,  £4  7s  9d  in 
Gloucestershire  on  the  fees  "quos  (vicecomes)  potuit  invenire";  6 
marks  in  Berks;  10i£  marks  in  Rutland;  the  whole  sum  due  from 
his  barony  was  charged  in  War.  and  Leic.  (ibid.). 

is*  Guido  de  Laval  was  charged  with  40  marks  in  Yorkshire  and 
was  quit  in  Line.,  Oxford,  and  Surrey;  the  archbishop  of  York,  with 
40  marks  in  Yorkshire  and  quit  in  Oxford;  William  de  Novo  Mercato, 
50  marks  fine  in  Dors,  and  Somerset  and  quit  in  Gloucester  (Pipe 
Roll,  4  John)  ;  see  William  de  Reimes,  Geoffrey  Fitz  Geoffrey,  and 
John  de  Venecia  (ibid.,  Norf.  and  Suff.,  m.  8  d). 

iss  "Henricus  de  Taiden  debet  etc.     Et  debent  requiri  in  honore 

51 


STUDIES  IN  TAXATION 

the  exchequer  seemed  to  recognize  that  it  could  not  legally 
collect  from  the  rear-vassal.  William  Luvel  owed  two 
marks  on  one  fee,  but  the  amount  was  cancelled  because 
he  held  of  the  earl  of  Leicester  and  not  of  the  king.186 
Milo  de  Buteford  owed  four  marks  on  one  fee,  but  the 
following  year  the  charge  was  crossed  off  because  he  held 
of  William  Briwerre  who  had  a  writ  of  quittance.181  That 
scutage  fell  back  on  the  rear-vassal  is  shown  by  three 
facts:  the  king  sometimes  collected  from  him,  tenants  in 
chief  were  entered  in  the  roll  in  the  different  counties  in 
which  they  held  lands,  and  if  rear-vassals  were  pardoned 
their  scutage,  their  lords  were  also  pardoned  an  equal 
amount.188  When  a  fee  fell  into  the  king's  hand,  scutages 
and  fines  were  collected  from  all  the  knights  enfeoffed. 
The  abbot  of  Ramsey  owed  the  service  of  four  knights, 
but  in  1202,  when  the  abbey  was  vacant,  it  paid  eight 
marks  of  scutage  and  forty-five  marks  of  fines.18£  The 
bishopric  of  Lincoln  was  also  vacant  at  that  time.  It 

de  Wallingf  sicut  vicecomes  dicit"  (ibid.,  Glouc.,  m.  13).  Cf.  the 
case  of  the  fee  of  Oliver  de  Tracy  which  owed  56  marks  of  scutage 
(ibid.,  Devon,  m.  18  d) ;  "sed  aniodo  requiri  a  Willelmo  de  Braiosa 
qui  habet  feoda  militum  illorum  per  concordiam  factam  inter  ipsum 
Willelmum  et  Oliverum  per  regem"  (ibid.,  5  John,  Devon).  Evidently 
the  sheriff  had  not  collected  from  the  rear-vassals. 

186  "Willelmus  Luvel  debet  ii  marcas  pro  i  feodo.  Sed  non  debet 
summoneri  quia  recordatum  est  quod  non  tenet  feodum  illud  de  rege 
sed  de  comite  Leircestrie"  (ibid.,  4  John,  Oxf.,  m.  15). 

IST  Milo  de  Buteford,  4m  on  1  fee  (ibid.,  Devon,  m.  18  d) ;  "sed 
Willelmus  Briwerre  habet  quietanciam  de  quo  .  .  .  Milo  tenet  feodum 
(illud)  (ibid.,  5  John,  Devon). 

188  Stephen  de  Longchamp  held  1  fee  of  Walter  de  Lacy,  was 
pardoned  the  scutage  on  this  fee  and  the  amount  was  deducted  from 
Walter's  debt  to  the  exchequer  (ibid.,  4  John,  Heref.,  m.  19  d) ; 
Alfred  of  Lincoln  held  5  fees  of  the  abbot  of  Glastonbury,  was 
acquitted  the  scutage  due  from  them  and  the  sum  was  accordingly 
deducted  from  the  abbot's  scutage  (ibid.,  m.  7  d).  Each  of  these 
tenants  in  chief  paid  scutage  this  year  only,  and  these  extracts  show 
that  they  were  allowed  to  collect  scutage  from  their  vassals. 

iss  ibid.,  4  John,  Cant,  and  Hunt.,  m.  10  d. 

52 


UNDER  JOHN  AND  HENRY  III 

owed  the  service  of  sixty  knights,  but  it  paid  £189  19s  of 
fines  on  102%  fees.190  The  method  of  accounting  shows 
no  change.  The  fines  were  assessed  by  special  officials, 
perhaps  the  itinerant  justices.191  The  king  could  not  at 
will  increase  the  number  of  fees  on  which  a  tenant  paid 
scutage;  the  tenant  clung  to  his  previous  assessment  and 
the  law  upheld  him.192 

THE  TAXATION  OF  1203 

The  following  year,  the  war  in  France  continued.198 
No  copy  of  a  summons  to  the  English  tenants  for  a  cam- 
paign at  this  time  exists,  but  in  March  the  Flemish 
knights  who  held  feoda  of  John  were  summoned  to  meet 
at  Easter.194  One  can  collect  from  the  Patent  Roll  a  fair 
list  of  great  English  barons  who  were  in  France  this  year. 
In  June,  the  king  wrote  of  the  service  which  the  barons 
were  performing.195  At  Easter,  English  barons  were 

190  "de  flnibus  Ix  militum  .  .  .  quos  episcopus  debet  regi  et  de  xlii 
militibus  et  dim.  quos  habet  in  dominico"  (Pipe  Roll,  4  John,  m.  20). 

191  "Radulfus  films  Main'  r  c  de  x  marcis  pro  i  feodo  sicut  con- 
tinetur    in    breve    justic'    quod    est    in    forulo    marescalli"     (ibid., 
Northumb.,  m.  14  d) ;  "postea  recordatum  fuit  per  justic'  quod  non 
finivit  nisi  per  tres  marcas"  (ibid.,  Oxf.,  m.  15). 

192  "Willelmus  Malet  habet  quietanciam  de  xxii  militibus  et  dim. 
et  duabus  terciis  et  i  quarta  et  i  vicesima  per  breve  regis.     Sed  de 
his  non  debet  respondere  regi  nisi  de  xx  feodis  militum  et  unius 
militis  et  dim.  et  duabus  quintis  sicut  carta  ipsius  testatur"   (ibid., 
4  John,  Dors,  and  Somers.,  m.  7  d).     In   1166,  this  fee  contained 
22%^%i^0  fees  of  the  old  enfeoffment  and  1^%  fees  of  the  new 
enfeoffment  in  Somerset  and  %  fee  in  Kent  (Red  Book,  I,  227-228). 

193  John  remained  in  France  through  the  winter  of  1202-1203  to 
carry  on  the  war.     In  December  he  received  3,000m  from  England 
and  in  January,  1203,  1,000m  (Rot.  Norm.,  pp.  65,  72).     There  are 
several  notices  of  mercenaries  (ibid.,  pp.  69,  70,  75,  77). 

is*  Rot.  Lift.  Pat.,  p.  26b. 

195  "ipse  Thomas  nobis  faciet  servicium  suum  de  baronia  sua  sicut 
alii  barones  nobis  faciunt  .  .  .  et  milites  ipsius  Thomas  distringatis 
que  ei  servicia  sua  faciant"  (Rot.  Lib.,  p.  44). 

53 


STUDIES  IN  TAXATION 

compelled  to  remain  in  the  king's  service;  there  were 
rumors  that  some  were  plotting  to  abandon  him,196  though 
one  might  be  disseized  for  failure  to  be  in  the  king's 
service.197  Finally,  only  a  little  over  2,000  fees  were 
taxed;  the  rest  were  excused  probably  on  account  of 
service.  All  these  facts  indicate  that  a  general  summons 
was  issued.  The  king's  desire  to  have  more  men  in  his 
army  than  were  furnished  him  by  his  English  tenants  is 
shown  by  his  summons  to  Flemish  knights  and  by  his 
pardoning  debts  to  men  who  in  return  were  to  supply 
him  with  knights.198 

The  taxation  for  the  year  consisted  of  a  scutage  at 
two  marks  per  fee,  accompanied  by  fines  pro  passagio, 
a  tallage  in  some  counties,  contributions  called  dona  from 
religious  houses,  and  later  in  the  year,  what  was  really 
a  tax,  but  took  the  form  of  a  fine  for  military  service,  a 
seventh  of  personal  property.  The  scutage  was  probably 
put  in  charge  in  the  spring  of  1203.  The  account  appears 
in  the  Michaelmas  roll  of  this  year;  an  entry  dated 
September  19  refers  to  it  as  in  process  of  collection;195 
on  May  19,  there  is  reference  to  its  collection  on  the  lands 
of  William  of  Albini.200 

The  account  follows  :201 

™«Rot.  Litt.  Pat.,  p.  29a;  Rot.  Norm.,  p.  96. 

!97  "unde  disseisitus  fuit  eo  quod  non  fuit  in  servicio  nostro  in 
quo  ipse  modo  est"  (Rot.  Lib.,  p.  69) ;  "Radulfus  de  Bolebec  debet 
xx  marcas  et  i  palefridum  ut  sit  quietus  de  concelatione  servitii 
quartae  partis  feodi  i  militis  unde  retatus  fuit"  (Pipe  Roll,  5  John, 
York,  m.  17). 

198  "pro  ista  quietacione  (of  a  debt)  tenebit  praedictus  Radulphus 
(de  Ruperia)  tres  milites  in  servicio  nostro  cum  equis  et  armis"  for 
a  stated  period  (Rot.  Litt.  Pat.,  p.  32b)  ;  Thomas  de  Arcy  (Rot.  Lib., 
p.  44). 

199  "et  si  scutagium  illud  captum  fuerit"  (Rot.  Lib.,  p.  64). 
zoOjRof.  Lib.,  p.  34.     This  is  not  the  scutage  of  1202,   for  which 

William  had  a  writ  of  quittance. 

201  The  account  for  Norfolk  and  Suffolk  is  in  Pipe  Roll,  10  John, 
m.  19. 

54 


UNDER  JOHN  AND  HENRY  III 


Scutage  at  2m 

M  s  d 

Clerical  tenants     .          .          .          .        818  0  0 
Twenty-eight  lay  tenants  (each  5  or 

more  fees)202            .          .                  986  7  2 
Other  lay  tenants   (each  fewer  than 

5  fees,  etc.)203         .          .          .       611  5  0 


Total 


2415   12 


Clerical  tenants     .... 
Thirty-seven  lay  tenants  (each  6  or 

more  fees)204 
Other  lay  tenants  (each  fewer  than  5 

fees,  etc.)205 

Total 

Sergeants      ..... 
Additional206  .... 

Grand  total  charged 
Paid,  5  and  6  John 
Fees  taxed,  about  2300. 


Fines 
676     3     4 

1466     8  10 


1881     8 
3924     7 
223     5 
53   12 
6617 
4748 


6 
4 
0 
0 

9  10 
6  11 


Fees 
143 

556 

422 
1121 


Those  who  performed  their  service  did  not  as  a  rule 
pay  scutage.  William  Earl  Marshal,  and  others  were 
thus  exempt.207  Robert  de  Gouiz  of  the  honor  of  Glouces- 
ter was  charged  with  10m  on  5  fees,  but  was  acquitted 

202  Of  these,  14  held  10  or  more  fees. 

203  Of  this  sum,  76m  are  on  detached  fees  of  great  barons  and 
307m  on  honors  in  hand,  leaving  about  228m  on  tenants  in  chief. 

204  Of  this  number,  18  tenants  on  honors  in  hand  held  242  fees  and 
were  charged  580m,  leaving  19  lay  tenants  in  chief  holding  314  fees 
charged  with  880m. 

2Qo  Of  this  sum,  793m  are  charged  against  214  fees  on  honors  in 
hand,  leaving  not  over  1,088m  against  208  fees  of  tenants  in  chief. 

2°8  Number  of  fees  unknown. 

207  "William  Earl  Marshal,  the  earls  of  Chester,  Leicester,  Albemarle, 
Salisbury,  Robert  Fitz  Walter,  Saher  de  Quincy,  Geoffrey  Fitz  Peter, 
Fulk  Painel,  Robert  de  Tresgoz,  and  Roger  de  Lacy  were  in  France 


55 


STUDIES  IN  TAXATION 

because  of  service  in  the  field.20*  William  of  Albini  was 
in  the  army  in  France;  the  sheriff  had  collected  eight 
marks  on  his  land  in  Oxfordshire.  This  sum  the  king 
ordered  to  be  paid  into  the  exchequer,  but  it  was  to  be 
placed  to  the  account  of  other  debts,  not  scutage.20t 
Exceptions  however  occurred.  Hervey  Bagot  was  charged 
with  120  marks,210  yet  he  was  in  the  king's  service  in 
France.211  Nicholas  de  Verdun  who  held  one  fee  paid  his 
scutage,212  though  he  was  in  the  army.213 

Not  much  scutage  was  charged  against  the  greater  lay 
tenants.  Other  men  than  Hervey  Bagot  (holding  twenty 
fees  or  more)  were  Henry  de  la  Pomeraie,  63%  marks, 
of  which  only  8%  marks  are  recorded  as  paid  ;214  Aubrey 
de  Ver,  60/4  marks,  all  of  which  was  paid;215  and  Henry 
de  Oilli,  64m  8s  10d.218  Nearly  all  of  the  sum  charged 
against  clerical  tenants  was  paid  promptly.  The  remain- 
ing 610  odd  marks  of  the  scutage  proper  fell  on  some 
lesser  tenants  in  chief,  on  detached  holdings  of  great 
lords,  on  escheats,  and  on  parts  of  baronies  in  hand.211 
Some  of  these  sums  should  be  probably  included  in  the 
main  accounts  of  great  lords,  so  that  this  amount  is  too 
large.  In  any  case,  it  is  much  too  small  to  represent  a 

(Rot.  Lift.  Pat.,  pp.  26-34;  Roger  of  Wendover,  Flores  Historiarum, 
ed.  Coxe,  Engl.  Hist.  Soc.,  Ill,  173)  and  all  receive  writs  of  quittance 
in  the  Pipe  Roll;  Thomas  de  St.  Valery  was  in  France  and  had  his 
scutage  (Madox,  I,  668,  n.  x). 

208  "sed  facit  servicium  suum  in  Normannia"   (Pipe  Roll,  5  John, 
Glouc.,  m.  3  d). 

209  Rot.  Lib.,  p.  34;  see  also  Thomas  de  St.  Valery   (Madox,   I, 
668,  n.  x). 

»•  Pipe  Roll,  5  John,  Staff.    No  payment  was  made  however. 

211  William  Salt  Arch.  Soc.  Coll.,  Ill,  116. 

212  Pipe  Roll,  5  John,  Staff. 

213  William  Salt,  etc.,  Ill,  117. 

2n  Pipe  Roll,  5  John,  Devon,  m.  6. 
215  Ibid.,  5  and  11  John,  Essex  and  Hert. 
2ie/6td.,  5  John,  Oxf.,  m.  15;  ibid.,  6  John. 
2i7  See  above,  p.  55,  note  203. 

56 


UNDER  JOHN  AND  HENRY  III 

general  payment  by  rear-vassals  while  the  king  was 
obtaining  also  scutage,  fine,  or  service  from  the  tenants 
in  chief. 

As  before,  not  many  fines  were  levied  on  clerical  tenants. 
Fifteen  abbots  and  priors  holding  93  fees  paid  fines — the 
chief  being  Abingdon,  80  marks  on  30  fees  ;218  Tavistock, 
40  marks  on  16  fees;219  Coventry,  25  marks  on  10 
fees;220  Ramsey,  in  hand,  30  marks  on  4  fees;221  St. 
Albans,  100  marks  on  6  fees.222  The  amounts  were  paid 
promptly.  Worcester  was  the  only  bishopric  which  fined, 
123m  3s  4d  on  about  50  fees.223  The  lay  barons  holding 
more  than  20  fees  who  fined  were:  the  earl  of  War- 
wick, 60  marks  and  his  scutage  on  102%  fees;224  Doun 
Bardolf,  60  marks  on  25  fees;225  Robert  de  Cardinan, 
120  marks  on  71  fees,  and  Roger  de  Valtort,  100  marks 
on  60  fees.226  It  will  be  noticed  from  the  table  given 
above  that  the  fines  of  vassals  holding  five  fees  or  over 
were  at  a  rate  of  less  than  three  marks  per  fee.227  The 
fine  therefore  did  not  represent  the  whole  service  of  the 
holding  in  addition  to  the  scutage.  The  bulk  of  the  fines 
in  rate  and  amount  fell  on  the  small  tenants.  About  half 
of  these  held  of  honors  like  Tickhill,  Peverel,  Gloucester, 
etc.,  which  were  in  hand.228  Usually  the  fine  included  the 

218  Pipe  Roll,  5  John,  Berks,  m.  4. 

219  Ibid.,  Devon,  m.  6.    The  service  was  either  15  or  16  fees. 

220  Ibid.,  War.  and  Leic.,  m.  3  d. 

221  Ibid.,  Cant,  and  Hunt.,  m.  1. 

222  Jbid.,  Essex  and  Hert.,  m.  10  d. 

223  The   original   service   was    60    fees    (Round,   Feudal   England, 
p.  250). 

224  pipe  Roll,  5  John,  War.  and  Leic.,  m.  3  d. 

225  ibid.,  Notts,  and  Derby,  m.  13  d. 

220  ibid.,  Cornw.,  m.  6  d.  These  held  of  the  honor  of  Mortain 
which  always  paid  scutage  at  five-eighths  the  ordinary  rate. 

227  The  scutage  on  these  holdings  is  included ;  fees  on  the  honor 
of  Mortain  are  not  included. 

228  See  above,  p.  55,  notes  204,  205. 

57 


STUDIES  IN  TAXATION 

scutage,  but  there  were  some  cases  in  which  they  were 
separate.229 

As  noted  in  previous  years,  barons  who  received  writs 
of  quittance  were  entered  as  exempt  in  all  counties  where 
they  held  fees  and  therefore  all  their  land,  not  their 
demesne  only,  was  exempt  from  scutage.  Thus  Warren 
Fitz  Gerold  was  quit  in  nine  counties  and  the  earl  of 
Leicester  in  eleven.  Sometimes,  however,  the  sheriff  col- 
lected part  of  the  scutage  for  the  exchequer,  apparently 
taking  it  from  the  rear-vassal.  Robert  Marmiun  was 
exempt,  but  paid  a  mark  in  Northamptonshire;  Gilbert 
Peke  also,  but  the  sheriff  collected  one  mark  on  his  fee 
in  Berks ;  that  official  took  eight  marks  from  the  fees 
of  William  of  Albini  in  Oxfordshire  before  the  writ  of 
quittance  was  received.230  The  number  of  fees  taxed 
indicates  that  this  was  not  a  common  practice  and  the 
sums  taken  in  most  cases  were  small.  It  was  illegal  to 
collect  from  such  men,  and  the  sums  could  be  and  were 
recovered  by  the  tenant.233  In  those  baronies  which  paid 
scutage  or  fine,  the  sheriff  sometimes  seems  to  have  col- 
lected from  the  sub-tenants.  The  earl  of  Warwick  had 

22»  E.g.  as  above,  the  earl  of  Warwick. 

230  Rot.  Lib.,  p.  34;  see  Thomas  de  St.  Valery   (Madox,  I,  668, 
n.  x). 

231  In  the  account  of  allowances  and  payments  made  by  the  sheriff 
is  the  item:  "et  Hugoni  de  Ferrariis  Ixxvi  sol.  et  i  den.  pro  scutagio 
militum  suorum  capto  in  hoc  comitatu"   (Pipe  Roll,  5  John,  Wig., 
m.  4  d).    This  may  refer  to  the  scutage  of  1202,  but  the  point  holds 
good,  for  he  had  writs  of  quittance  both  in  1202  and  1203.     The 
8m  collected  from  William  of  Albany  are  not  returned  to  him,  but 
they  are  placed  to  his  credit  at  the  exchequer  for  other  debts,  not 
scutage  (Rot.  Lib.,  p.  34).    William  de  Braose  was  in  France  (Rot. 
Litt.  Pat.,  pp.  27,  28,  31b)    and  was  charged  with  56m  of  scutage 
on  the  honor  of  Berdestaple,  56m  on  the  honor  of  Torrington,  and 
56m  on  the  honor  of  Oliver  de  Tracy;  of  this  sum  £33  15s  Id  were 
paid  and  the  rest  pardoned    (Pipe  Roll,  5  John,  Devon,  m.  6  d). 
Thus  he  seems  to  have  performed  his  service  and  paid  part  of  his 
scutage,  but  as  the  amount  paid  was  credited  to  William  in  another 

58 


UNDER  JOHN  AND  HENRY  III 

his  whole  account  entered  in  the  counties  of  Warwick 
and  Leicester  where  part  is  entered  as  paid;  part  was 
also  paid  in  three  other  counties.235  Yet  that  this  was 
not  a  general  practice  is  shown  by  the  fact  that  the 
tenant  in  chief  might  account  for  the  whole  sum  due  from 
him  in  one  county  and  be  acquitted  in  the  other  counties 
where  his  fees  lay.233  The  law  seems  to  have  upheld  the 
rear- vassal  who  refused  to  pay  the  scutage  to  the  sheriff. 
In  several  cases  a  tenant  protested  that  he  was  not  an 
immediate  vassal  of  the  king  and  hence  owed  him  no 
scutage.  An  inquest  was  held  which  showed  that  his  con- 
tention was  true,  that  he  did  not  hold  of  the  king  in 
chief,  and  consequently  the  demand  for  scutage  was 
remitted.234 

debt,  he  really  paid  no  scutage:  'et  in  perdonis  ipsi  Willelmo  xxxiii 
li.  et  xv  sol.  et  i  den.  per  breve  regis  quia  denarios  illos  reddidit  de 
scutagio  praedicto  de  quo  habuit  quietantiam"  (Pipe  Roll,  5  John, 
Heref.,  m.  4  d). 

232  in  Glouc.,   £4  7s  9d;  in  Berks,  6m  and  in  Northamp.,  4i£m 
(Pipe  Roll,  5  John). 

233  Thus   Baldwin   Wak   accounts   for   20m   for  his   whole  barony 
in   Line,    and   is   acquitted   in    Rutl.    and   War.    and   Leic.;    Hervey 
Bagot  120m  in  Staff.,  pays  9s  in  Berks  through  the  sheriff  and  is 
quit  in  War.  and  Leic.,  and  Oxf. ;  Doun  Bardolf  60m  fine  on  25  fees 
in  Notts,  and  Derby  and  quit  in  War.  and  Leic.;   Ralph  Musard 
30m  in  Glouc.  and  quit  in  Bucks  and  Bedf.,  Berks,  and  War.  and 
Leic.,  and  Oxford;  the  bishop  of  Winchester  120m  in  Hants  and  quit 
in  Berks;  Elias  Giffard  27m  on  9  fees  in  Glouc.  and  quit  in  Berks; 
all  of  the  Pipe  Roll,  5  John. 

234  "Arnaldus  de  Bosco  debet  xx  marc,  de  feodis  x  militum,  sed 
non  debet  inde  summoneri  per  inquisitionem  factam  que  non  tenet 
de  rege  sed  de  comite  Leircestr'  Wintonie"    (ibid.,  8   John,  Glouc., 
in  the  account  of  the  fourth  scutage)  ;  the  lord  here  had  a  writ  of 
quittance.     "Milo  de  Buteford  debet  iiii  marc,  de  feodis  ii  militum, 
sed    W.    Briewerre   habet    quietanciam    de   quo   praedictus    M.    tenet 
feoda  per  breve  G.  filii  Petri  nee  debet  ulterius  Milo  inde  summoneri 
sed  W.  Briewerre  de  quo  idem  M.  tenet  feoda  [ilia]"  (ibid.,  5  John, 
Devon,  m.  6).    "Sewal'  films  Fulcherii  debet  i  marcam  (of  the  fourth 
scutage),  sed  non  debet  summoneri  propter  causam  superius  anno- 
tatam  viz.,  per  inquisitionem  factam  que  non  tenet  praedictum  feodum 

59 


STUDIES  IN  TAXATION 

The  tenant  in  chief  shifted  the  scutage  onto  the  rear- 
vassal.  In  the  roll  the  fine  is  said  to  have  been  paid  for 
this  privilege.235  If  a  rear-vassal  was  exempted  from 
scutage  by  the  king,  his  lord  was  pardoned  that  amount.236 
That  the  exchequer  officials  had  the  liability  of  the  sub- 
tenant in  mind  is  shown  by  the  entry  of  the  name  of  a 
tenant  in  chief  in  the  different  counties  in  which  he  held 
fees,  either  when  payments  were  made  or  when  the  tenant 
received  a  writ  of  quittance.  The  fines  were  not  shifted 
to  the  rear-vassal.  Tenants  on  honors  in  hand  paid  fines 
to  the  king  as  though  they  were  tenants  in  chief.237  The 
exchequer  desired  to  have  an  exact  account  of  all  fees 
in  each  county,  and  information  on  this  point  was  supplied 
by  the  sheriff.238  As  usual  some  of  the  tenants  in  chief 
rendered  their  accounts  directly  at  the  exchequer,239 
though  the  sheriff  responded  for  considerable  sums. 

de  rege  sed  de  comite  de  Warewic' "  (ibid.,  6  John,  m.  9,  fourth 
scutage) ;  in  this  case  the  lord  owes  fine  and  scutage  this  year.  See 
also  Ralph  de  Marci  (ibid.,  7  John,  Essex  and  Herts,  m.  16) ; 
William  Fitz  Geoffrey  (ibid.,  1  John,  Notts,  and  Derby,  m.  19  d) ; 
Richard  Engaine  (ibid.,  9  John,  Northamp.,  m.  13) ;  Geoffrey  de  la 
Hose  (ibid.,  9  John,  Berks,  m.  18  d) ;  all  in  the  accounts  of  the 
fourth  scutage  of  these  years. 

235  "Episcopus  Wigorn'  r  c  de  quater  xx  li.  et  xliii  sol.  et  iiii  den. 
de  fine  suo  ne  transfretet  et  pro  habendo  scutagio  suo"  (Pipe  Roll, 
5  John,  Wig.,  m.  4  d). 

23«  The  abbess  of  Godestow  was  pardoned  her  scutage  on  half  a 
fee  held  of  Geofifrey  de  Chausi  and  he  also  was  pardoned  that  amount 
(ibid.,  Berks,  m.  4) ;  the  king  held  3  fees  of  the  bishop  of  Worcester 
who  was  therefore  pardoned  the  scutage  on  them;  William  Marshal 
was  pardoned  20s  scutage  on  fees  held  of  the  same  bishop  and  the 
latter  was  likewise  exempt  (ibid.,  Wig.,  m.  4  d). 

237  E.g.  in  the  honor  of  Gloucester  (ibid.,  m.  3  d). 

238  David  earl  of  Huntingdon  8m  of  scutage  "sicut  vicecomes  dicit 
scilicet  de  iiii  feodis"  (ibid.,  m.  3  d).    This  is  also  shown  by  the  entry 
of  men  in  counties  other  than  where  the  heads  of  their  baronies  lie. 

239  Simon  Basset  and   Richard  de  Vermin  account  for   10m  on  3 
fees:   "in   thesauro   v  marc,   per   man  urn   praedicti    Simonis"    (ibid., 
Notts,  and  Derby,  m.  13  d). 

60 


UNDER  JOHN  AND  HENRY  III 

Part  at  least  of  the  fines  were  assessed  by  special 
justices.240 

Notices  of  the  tallage  appear  in  thirteen  counties.  It 
was  assessed  by  the  itinerant  justices241  and  was  collected 
by  the  sheriff.  Sums  were  charged  against  persons, 
vills,  and  towns.  Towns  often  assumed  the  work  of 
repartition.242 

The  contributions  from  religious  houses  in  1203  were 
usually  called  dona.  In  Dorset,  the  title  was  "De  auxilio 
abbatum  et  priorum."  These  dona  were  round  sums 
exacted  arbitrarily.  The  list  of  contributors  included 
houses  which  held  by  military  tenure  and  those  which  did 
not.  In  the  first  case  the  donum  sometimes  acquitted  the 
tenant  from  paying  scutage ;  sometimes  another  payment 
was  made  for  the  military  service  due.243  Part  of  the 
money  was  collected  by  the  sheriff,244  though  some  houses 
responded  to  the  exchequer  by  their  own  representa- 

240  "qui  finis  intravit  per  os  justiciar"'  (ibid.,  Line.,  m.  9). 

241  In  Gloucestershire,  the  tallage  was  laid  by  Simon  de  Pateshull, 
William  de  Cantelu  and  Henry  de  Northampton   (ibid.,  Glouc.,  m. 
5)  ;  in  the  county  of  Northampton  is  the  following  title:  "De  ammer- 
ciamentis  per  S.  de  Pateshull  et  socios  suos;  idem  vicecomes  r  c  de 
C  et  quater  xx  et  ix  li.  et  xi  sol.  et  vii  den.  de  misericordiis  et  tal- 
lagiis  hominum  et  villarum  quorum  nomina  et  debita  et  causae  debi- 
torum  annotantur  in  rotulo  que  praedicti  liberaverunt  in  thesauro" 
(ibid.,  m.  14  d).    These  men  seem  to  be  the  itinerant  justices. 

242  "Civitas  Ebor'  r  c  de  D  marc,  de  taillagio;  in  thesauro  xv  li.  et 
episcopo   Norwiz  xxx  li.  .  .  .  et   debet  civitas"  4321^  marks    (ibid., 
York,  m.  17).     The  tallage  of  these  thirteen  counties  amounted  to 
about  £1,500,  but  this  sum  is  incomplete  for  these  bailiwicks,  as  it 
does    not    include    sums    in    which    the    tallage    was    mixed    with 
amercements. 

243  Abbot  of  Evesham  "r  c  de  xl  marcis  de  dono  et  pro  habendo 
scutagio  suo"   (Wigorn.) ;  the  abbot  of  Abingdon  40m  donum  and 
80m  fine  on  30  fees   (Berks) ;  the  abbey  of  Ramsey,  in  hand,  40m 
de  dono  and  30m  fine  on  4  fees  (Cant,  and  Hunt.).    These  are  from 
the  Pipe  Roll  of  5  John,  m.  1,  4,  4  d. 

244  "Idem  vicecomes  r  c,"  etc. 

61 


STUDIES  IN  TAXATION 

tive.245     Seventy-three  houses  scattered  over  twenty-six 
counties  contributed  1,577  marks. 

Another  levy  of  importance  was  the  seventh  of  personal 
property.  According  to  the  chroniclers,  this  tax  was 
taken  on  the  pretext  that  the  barons  had  deserted  him 
after  the  return  of  John  to  England  in  December, 
1203. 246  That  there  was  disaffection  was  evident  in 
the  spring.247  During  the  year  some  of  the  tenants  had 
withdrawn  from  John's  service,  but  they  were  disseized 
and  in  November  returned  to  their  allegiance,  receiving 
their  lands  again.248  The  seventh  was  not  levied  however 
at  the  end  of  the  year,  but  at  the  beginning  of  the  summer 
of  1203. 24£  If  at  first  it  was  a  fine  for  default  of  service, 
it  was  apparently  extended,  when  the  levy  was  once  begun, 
to  all  the  tenants  in  chief  and  to  the  clergy  as  well.25C  We 
do  not  know  whether  property  was  actually  assessed. 
The  donum  already  discussed  may  be  the  exaction  from 
the  clergy  which  is  spoken  of  by  the  chroniclers.  If  so, 
no  assessment  of  property  was  made,  but  lump  sums  were 
demanded  under  the  name  of  an  aid.251  The  collection 

245  The  donum  of  the  abbot  of  Westminster  was  paid  in  camera 
at  Rouen,  probably  by  the  agent  of  the  abbot  (ibid.,  6  John,  Lond. 
and  Midd.,  m.  8). 

246  Wend.,  Ill,   173;   Cogg.,  p.   144;   Liebermann,  Ann.   8.   Edm., 
p.  142.     Wendover  is  the  one  who  says  that  the  king  pretended  it 
was  on  account  of  desertion. 

2*7  R0t.  Lift.  Pat.,  p.  29a. 

248  Rot.  Lib.,  pp.  73,  74.    For  other  cases  of  withdrawal  from  the 
king's  service,  see  Rot.  Norm.,  pp.  92,  93. 

249  "Rex  etc.,  Galfrido  filio  Petri  salutem.     Mandamus  vobis  quod 
faciatis  habere  comiti  AlbemarP  septimam  denariorum  de  terra  sua. 
Teste  me  ipso  apud  Aurivall,'  xviii  die  Junii"    (Rot.  Lib.,  p.  43) ; 
"Sciatis  quod  quietavimus  dilectum  et  fidelem  nostrum  W.  Maresc' 
comitem  de  Penbroc  de  septena  de  dominico  suo;  et  ideo  vobis  man- 
damus quod  eum  inde  quietum  esse  faciatis.     Teste  me  ipso  apud 
Roth',  x  die  Julii"   (ibid.,  p.  47). 

250  Thus  William  Earl  Marshal  who  did  not  desert  the  king  had 
to  get  a  special  writ  of  exemption;  Wend.,  above. 

251  An   item  in  the   Pipe   Roll  suggests   that   an   assessment   was 


UNDER  JOHN  AND  HENRY  III 

from  the  clergy  was  in  charge  of  the  archbishop  of 
Canterbury,  and  from  laymen,  of  the  justiciar.252  Refusal 
to  pay  was  punishable  by  fine,  payment  of  which  might 
be  long  deferred.253  The  account  of  the  levy  is  not  in  the 
Pipe  Roll. 

The  tax  is  noteworthy  for  it  shows  that  the  attention 
of  the  government  was  directed  more  and  more  to  the 
personal  property  of  the  kingdom  as  a  source  of  revenue. 
Another  example  of  taxation  of  this  character  is  worth 
notice.  In  the  Channel  Islands,  a  fifth  of  revenues  of  one 
year  was  to  be  collected  on  the  lands  of  bishops,  abbots, 
clerks,  knights,  rear-vassals,  and  others  to  support  the 
knights  and  sergeants  who  were  defending  the  islands. 25J 

THE  TAXATION  OF  1204 

After  a  disastrous  year  in  Normandy,  John  returned 
to  England  in  December,  1203,  for  men  and  money  to 
continue  the  struggle  against  Philip  Augustus.20'  On 
January  2,  1204,  the  great  council  of  lay  and  clerical 
tenants  met  at  Oxford  and  the  state  of  the  king's  affairs 
in  France  was  discussed.  An  expedition  to  be  led  by 
John  was  proposed  and  the  host  was  summoned  to  Ports- 
made.  In  the  compotus  of  the  lands  of  William  de  Longchamp 
rendered  by  the  custodian  is  the  entry:  "et  in  septima  data  regi  per 
assisam  77s  2d  de  dominico  ipsius  Willelmi"  (Pipe  Roll,  6  John, 
Wilts,  m.  19  d). 

252  Wend.,  above. 

253  "Willelmus  de  Berton  r  c  de  C  libris  pro  concelamento  septime. 
In  thesauro  £39  5s  3d  et  debet  £60  14s  9d"   (Pipe  Roll,  12  John, 
Hants). 

254  R0t.  Liit.  Pat.,  pp.  32b,  33b;  Rymer,  I,  89. 

258  "sperans  se  copiosum  exercitum  .  .  .  congregaturum  et  violen- 
tiam  regis  Philippi  exterminaturum"  (Cogg.,  p.  144) ;  "omnes  in 
regno  Anglise  .  .  .  nos  efficaciter  faciunt  auxilium  tarn  in  veniendo 
corporaliter  in  servicium  nostrum  in  Normanniam  quam  de  militibus 
et  pecuniis"  (letter  of  John  to  the  clergy  of  Ireland  asking  for  an 
aid,  February  10,  1204;  Rymer,  I,  90);  Wend.,  Ill,  173. 

63 


STUDIES  IN  TAXATION 

mouth.256  For  some  reason,  the  invasion  did  not  take 
place  as  planned.  The  king  remained  at  home  with  the 
body  of  the  host ;  a  few  of  the  barons  were  sent.25'  Mer- 
cenaries were  to  have  been  employed,258  and  when  John 
decided  not  to  go,  money  was  still  sent  to  hire  soldiers 
abroad.259 

To  defray  the  expenses  of  the  war,  it  was  determined 
in  the  council  to  levy  a  scutage  at  the  advanced  rate  of 
two  and  a  half  marks  per  fee.  Religious  houses  which  did 
not  hold  by  military  service  were  also  compelled  to  con- 
tribute.260 This  is  a  case  of  a  levy  put  in  charge  before 
the  expedition  was  to  set  out,  and  collected  although  the 
host  was  not  dispatched. 

The  account  follows: 

Scutage  at  2%m 
M       s     d 

Clerical  tenants      .          .          .          .        553   10     0 
Four  lay  tenants    (each   5   or  more 

fees) 102     6     8 

Other  lay  tenants  (each  fewer  than  5 

fees,  etc.)       .          .          .          .          94     6     0 
Total 750     9     4 

256  Rymer,  above;  "comites  et  barones  se  transfretaturos  cum  rege 
spoponderunt"  (Liebermann,  p.  144) ;  Hist,  de  O.  le  Mar.,  11.  12922-6, 
anno  1204;  Miss  Norgate  suggests  that  this  may  be  the  summons 
of  1205   (John  Lackland,  p.  102);  but  an  entry  on  the  Pipe  Roll 
implies   that   the   host   was   summoned   in    1204   and   that   writs   of 
quittance  were  issued  to  those  who  came:  "isti  habent  quietantiam 
praeter  eos  qui  inbreviati  sunt  ad  trans  fretandum  in  rotulo  que  rex 
misit"  (Pipe  Roll,  6  John,  Honor  Glouc.,  m.  17  d). 

257  The  earl  of  Albemarle  went  with  knights   (Rot.  Litt.  Pat.,  p. 
41b,  May,  1204) ;  Henry  de  Scalariis  crossed  with  two  knights  appar- 
ently for  his  father,  Hugh,  who  held  15  fees  (Rot.  Lib.,  p.  89). 

258  "et  Willelmo  de  Braiosa  10m  ad  opus  Leisani  Walensis  qui  venit 
in  servicium  regis  cum  200  Walensibus";  "et  Cadwalano  Walensi  10m 
ad  preparandumse  ad  trans  fretandum  in  servicium  regis"  (Pipe  Roll, 
6  John,  Glouc.;  Rot.  Lib.,  p.  88). 

25928,000  marks  (Cogg.,  p.  147). 

2«o  Wend.,  Ill,  175;  Liebermann,  p.  143;  Pipe  Roll,  6  John,  passim. 

64 


UNDER  JOHN  AND  HENRY  III 

Fines  Fees 

Clerical  tenants      ....  1375  0  0           229 
Twenty-three  lay  tenants  (each  5  or 

more  fees)261            .          .          .  1482  2  2            349 
Other  lay  tenants  (each  fewer  than  5 

fees,  etc.)262  .           .          .          .  2194  9  4            334 

Total 5051  11  6           912 

Sergeants 499  6  8 

Additional263           .          .          .  157  0  0 

Abbots,  priors  (not  military  tenants)  748  0  0 

Total  charged         ....  7207  0  10 

Paid,  6  and  7  John        .          .          .  5291  10  8 
Fees  taxed,  not  over  1300. 

It  is  seen  that  this  levy  was  not  a  general  tax  although 
the  host  did  not  carry  on  the  campaign.  Of  the  men 
who  were  acquitted,  some  actually  served  and  others 
appeared  at  Portsmouth  at  the  appointed  time  ready 
to  serve.264  The  men  who  paid  scutage  or  who  fined  were 
those  who  had  sought  exemption  from  the  expedition 
while  the  host  was  gathering.  Only  about  300  fees  paid 
the  scutage  proper  and  these  were  nearly  all  churchmen. 
Only  one  lay  tenant  holding  more  than  ten  fees  (the 
countess  of  Warwick,  fifteen  fees)  paid  it.265  The  bulk 

2«i  Of  these,  11  men  holding  184  fees  on  honors  in  hand  paid  673m, 
leaving  12  tenants  in  chief  charged  with  809m  on  165  fees. 

262  Of  this  sum,  1,207m  were  charged  against  224  fees  on  honors 
in  hand,  leaving  not  more  than  987m  charged  against  110  fees  of 
tenants  in  chief. 

zes  Number  of  fees  unknown. 

204  The  earl  of  Albemarle  who  served  and  Hugh  de  Scalariis  who 
sent  part  of  his  service  (above,  p.  64,  note  257)  were  acquitted  of 
scutage.  "Isti  habent  quietantiam  praeter  eos  qui  inbreviati  sunt 
ad  trans fretandum  in  rotulo  que  rex  misit"  (Pipe  Roll,  6  John, 
Honor  Glouc.,  m.  17  d). 

265  The  countess  of  Perche  paid  471^  marks  on  19  fees  in  Kent, 
but  she  had  made  a  special  arrangement  with  the  king  to  pay  scutage 
whenever  it  should  be  levied  (Pipe  Roll,  6  John,  m.  3  d,  m.  16  d; 
Rot.  Lib.,  p.  74). 

65 


STUDIES  IN  TAXATION 

of  the  levy  consisted  of  fines.  Of  churchmen,  only  abbots 
and  priors  were  so  charged  (229%  out  of  318  fees).  The 
average  rate  on  them  was  very  heavy,  about  six  marks 
per  fee.  The  abbey  of  Ramsey,  in  hand,  paid  100m  on 
4  fees;  the  abbot  of  St.  Edmunds,  100m  of  scutage  and 
120m  de  dono;  the  abbot  of  Peterborough,  150m  of 
scutage  and  100m  de  fine;  the  abbot  of  St.  Albans,  100m 
on  6  fees.266  In  general,  sums  levied  on  religious  houses 
were  heavier  than  before.  Of  the  greater  lay  tenants, 
Hervey  Bagot  paid  20m  and  his  scutage  on  60  fees;261 
Roger  de  Valtort,  200m  on  60  fees ;  Robert  de  Cardinan, 
300m  on  71  fees  ;268  Hubert  Fitz  Ralph,  105m  on  15  fees, 
and  Robert  de  Novo  Burgo,  100m  on  15  fees.269  The  fines 
on  tenants  holding  five  fees  or  over  average  more  than 
four  marks  per  fee.  Tenants  holding  fewer  than  five  fees 
each  paid  heavier  fines,  nearly  seven  marks  per  fee.270 
Sometimes  the  fine  and  scutage  formed  a  lump  sum; 
sometimes  the  tenant  paid  a  fine  in  addition  to  his 
scutage.271  In  the  latter  case,  the  sheriff  perhaps  col- 
lected the  scutage  from  the  rear-vassals.272  The  pro- 

266  Pipe  Roll,  6  John,  Cant,  and  Hunt.,  Norf.  and  Suff.,  Northamp., 
Essex  and  Hert.,  m.  3  d,  9  d,  11  d,  18  d. 
M  Ibid.,  Staff. 

268  ibid.,  Cornw.,  m.  4.     The  king  granted   Robert   the   right  to 
collect  21^  marks  per  fee  from  each  of  his  tenants  (Rot.  Litt.  Clau*., 
I,  2b) ;  this  honor  of  Mortain  usually  paid  at  five-eighths  the  regular 
rate;  on  this  occasion,  the  vassals  had  to  help  pay  the  fine  of  their 
lord. 

269  Ibid.,  Notts,  and  Derby,  Dors,  and  Somers.,  m.  13  d,  14  d. 

270  See  above,  p.  65. 

271  Sometimes  the  fine  is  only  for  his  demesne  and  the  scutage  is 
only   for   the  knights   whom  he   had   enfeoffed;   William   de   Heliun 
accounts    for   6m  "de   dominico   suo"   and    for  221^01   "de   scutagio 
militum  suorum"   (ibid.,  Essex  and  Hert.,  m.  3  d).     This  barony  in 
1166  consisted  of  10  fees,  nine  enfeoffed  and  one  on  the  demesne 
(Red  Book,  I,  357). 

272  "Comitissa  Herefordiae  r  c  de  L  marcis   de  dominico   suo  et 
scutagium  capiatur  de  hominibus  suis"   (Pipe  Roll,  6  John,  Glouc., 
m.  12) ;  her  scutage  was  36m  40d  "de  scutagio  militum  suorum  de 


UNDER  JOHN  AND  HENRY  III 

cedure  depended  apparently  on  a  bargain  between  the 
king  and  the  tenant.  That  the  exchequer  did  not  arbi- 
trarily take  scutage  from  the  sub-tenant  without  the 
knowledge  or  consent  of  his  lord  is  shown  by  cases  in 
which  it  was  demanded,  but  remitted  when  it  was  found 
that  the  tenant  was  a  rear-vassal.273  If  a  tenant  in  chief 
did  not  secure  a  writ  of  quittance,  the  sheriff  might  collect 
some  scutage  from  his  lands.  Later,  when  he  had  secured 
the  necessary  writ,  the  money  was  returned  to  him.274  If 
a  tenant  refused  to  pay  the  scutage,  the  sheriff  did  not 
take  it  from  the  rear-vassal  but  disseized  his  lord.275  The 

feodis  xiv  militum  et  dim."  (ibid.,  Kent,  m.  16  d).  The  form  of 
this  entry  suggests  that  the  king  collected  scutage  from  her  knights. 
Yet  it  is  doubtful  whether  this  was  the  case.  She  held  part  of  the 
barony  of  Walter  de  Mayenne  which  in  1166  consisted  of  20  fees 
of  the  old  enfeoffment,  1^  fees  of  the  new  enfeoffment,  and  9  fees 
on  the  demesne  (Red  Book,  I,  195;  servitium  debitum,  30  fees, 
Round,  Feudal  England,  p.  254,  note  80).  In  1201,  1202,  and  1203, 
she  accounted  for  14^  fees,  or  half  of  29  fees,  the  sum  of  the  old 
enfeoffment  and  the  demesne.  Thus  apparently  all  of  the  14J^ 
knights  were  not  enfeoffed  so  that  the  sheriff  could  not  collect  from 
them.  The  entry  cited  at  the  beginning  of  this  note  probably  means 
that  the  countess  paid  all  the  scutage  due  from  her  lands  in  addition 
to  a  fine. 

273  In  the  list  of  those  granted  writs  of  quittance  is  a  name  now 
blurred  of  one  who  is  quit  "quia  nichil  tenet  de  rege"  (Pipe  Roll,  6 
John,   Bucks   and   Bedf.,  m.  2) ;   "Ricardus   de  Bellocampo   et  Milo 
f rater  ejus  .  .  .  quieti  sunt  per  inquisitionem  factam  qui  nichil  tenent 
de  rege"  (ibid.,  Notts,  and  Derby,  m.  13  d) ;  Gilbert  de  Hastings  is 
quit  in  1207  of  the  fourth  and  fifth  scutages  "per  inquisitionem  quia 
nichil  tenet  de  rege"    (Lancashire  Pipe  Rolls  and  Early  Charters, 
ed.   W.   Farrer,   p.   214).     He   held   of  the  barony   of   Penwortham 
which  came  into  the  king's  hand  in  1200.    In  1205,  it  was  turned  over 
to  the  constable  of  Chester  and  this  was  evidently  the  reason  why 
Gilbert  was  excused  payment  by  the  exchequer  in  1207  of  the  two 
scutages  mentioned  (ibid.,  pp.  139,  146,  161,  379). 

274  The  sheriff  was  ordered  to  allow   Robert  de  Tresgoz  to  have 
his  scutage  "et  si  aliquid  scutagii  captum  est  idem  que  sit  ad  scac- 
carium   solutum   idem   ei   de   aliis   denariis   reddi   facias   et   nos   tibi 
alias  idem  locari  faciemus"  (Rot.  Lib.,  p.  93). 

275  The  archbishop  of  York  had  been  disseized  "occasione  scutagii 
que  ipse  debet  domino  regi"  (Rot.  Lift.  Claus.,  I,  lib). 

67 


STUDIES  IN  TAXATION 

sub-tenant,  however,  ultimately  paid  the  scutage,  whether 
his  lord  paid  scutage  or  fine,  or  served.  This  was  done 
by  the  royal  writ  de  scutagio  habendo.27* 

A  charge,  amounting  to  748  marks,  appears  in  the 
roll  against  twenty-six  religious  houses  which  did  not 
hold  by  military  tenure.  Probably  the  increase  in  the 
fines  of  those  houses  which  held  by  knight  service  was 
due  to  this  exaction  from  the  regular  clergy.277 

There  are  accounts  of  a  tallage  in  fourteen  counties, 
amounting  to  about  5,000  marks.278  Sometimes  the  town 
fined  in  a  lump  sum  and  sometimes  the  assessment  was 
made  per  capita  by  the  justices.279  In  the  latter  case, 
a  roll  of  the  sums  charged  against  all  persons  was  drawn 
up  in  duplicate,  one  copy  was  sent  to  the  exchequer  and 
the  other  delivered  to  the  sheriff  who  made  the  collection.280 

276  Robert  de  Cardinan,  the  archbishop  of  York  (ibid.,  I,  2b,  lib) ; 
William  de  London  and  Robert  de  Tresgoz  (Rot.  Lib.,  pp.  88,  93). 
Tenants  who  obtained  writs  of  quittance  on  account  of  service  (see 
above,  p.  65,  note  264-)  probably  received  this  right.    The  writ  some- 
times, not  always,  stated  the  rate  which  was  the  rate  of  scutage  of 
the  year.     The  tenant  in  chief  was  not  to  collect  more  than  this 
amount:  Ralph  Teisun,  warden  of  the  lands  of  Henry  de  Tilli,  had 
apparently   violated   this   rule   and   the   additional   money   collected 
from  the  sub-tenants  was  ordered  to  be  returned  (Rot.  Lib.,  p.  92). 

277  Sometimes  the  donum  on  a  house  which  held  by  military  service 
was  called  a  fine. 

278  It  was  not  always  called  a  tallage:  "Gives  Lond'  M  li.  pro  fine 
passagii"  (Pipe  Roll,  6  John,  Lond.  and  Midd.,  m.  8).     In  the  total 
sum  is  included  a  tallage  of  £104  18s  in  Oxfordshire,  which  first 
appears  in  the  roll  of  9  John,   (m.  5),  but  seems  to  belong  to  the 
tallage  of  1204. 

27»  "Homines  de  Solopesbiria  r  c  de  quater  xx  marcis  de  taillagio 
facto  per  S.  de  PateshulT  et  Willelmum  de  CanteP  in  villa  de  Solopes- 
biria per  capita"  (ibid.,  6  John,  Salop,  m.  12  d).  Probably  these 
men  were  the  itinerant  justices,  for  they  also  laid  the  amercements 
in  Salop. 

zso  "Idem  vicecomes  r  c  de  xv  li.  et  xiiii  sol.  et  viii  den.  de  taillagiis 
hominum  de  villa  de  Hereford'  quorum  nomina  et  debita  annotantur 
in  rotulo  que  praedicti  (tallagers)  liberaverunt  in  thesauro"  (ibid., 
Heref.,  m.  2  d). 

68 


UNDER  JOHN  AND  HENRY  III 

Another  levy  which  was  collected  at  this  time  was  the 
fifteenth  on  the  property  of  merchants.  The  amount 
yielded  by  this  tax  furnishes  a  basis  for  estimating  the 
relative  importance  of  scutage  and  tallage  in  the  budget 
of  the  year,  for  these  three  levies  were  all  part  of  the 
extraordinary  revenue.  Such  a  comparison  is  fairer  than 
one  with  the  ordinary  income.  In  the  Pipe  Roll  of  1204 
an  account  of  the  fifteenth  is  rendered  for  a  period  of 
about  sixteen  months ;  the  sum  received  was  £4,958  7s 
3%d.28J  The  assessment  and  collection  of  the  fifteenth 
in  the  different  towns  was  in  general  charge  of  three  men 
appointed  by  the  king.  Under  them,  six,  seven,  or  more 
men  of  each  port,  one  knight,  and  one  clerk  were  to  be 
chosen,  called  the  bailiffs  (ballivi)  of  the  fifteenth.  These 
latter  had  direct  charge  of  the  tax  in  their  own  town  and 
were  responsible  to  the  three  chief  supervisors.  They 
were  to  draw  up  a  roll  containing  the  names  of  the  mer- 
chants and  a  list  of  their  payments.282  Here  is  another 
example  of  a  levy  on  personal  property.  The  use  of 
local  machinery  to  assess  and  collect  the  tax  is  seen  to 
have  been  a  royal  device  to  get  at  a  fair  valuation  of 
property. 

THE  TAXATION  OF  1205 

In  June,  1205,  a  very  large  army  was  gathered  for  the 
invasion  of  Poitou  and  Gascony.283  The  expedition  was 
opposed  by  the  barons  and  the  king  was  obliged  to  yield. 
Instead,  there  was  sent  a  picked  force  of  knights  and 

281  Pipe  Roll,  6  John,  Kent,  in.  10  d;  Madox,  I,  722,  n.  ». 

232  R0t.  Litt.  Pat.,  p.  42. 

283  "cum  maximo  et  nobili  exercitu"  (Cogg.,  p.  152) ;  "exercitum 
grandem"  (Wend.,  Ill,  182) ;  militumque  et  peditum  populus  innu- 
merabilis"  (Gervase  of  Canterbury,  Historical  Works,  ed.  Stubbs, 
Rolls  Series,  II,  98);  Annales  Monasterii  de  Waverleia,  ed.  Luard, 
Rolls  Series,  p.  256. 

69 


STUDIES  IN  TAXATION 

barons  under  the  leadership  of  the  earl  of  Salisbury  and 
John's  natural  son,  Geoffrey,  to  relieve  La  Rochelle,  and 
the  body  of  knights  remained  at  home.284  In  connection 
with  this  expedition,  fines  and  scutages  were  levied,  a 
tallage  was  taken  in  several  counties,  and  some  sums  were 
received  from  religious  houses,  though  only  a  few  of  these 
appear  in  the  roll.285 

The  scutage  (at  two  marks)  was  put  in  charge,  at  the 
latest,  immediately  after  the  knights  were  dismissed,286 
but  some  fines  were  made  while  the  host  was  waiting  to 
sail,  and  it  is  possible  that  the  scutage  also  was  levied 
at  that  time.287  Inasmuch  as  only  a  small  force  of  knights 
was  sent,  we  should  expect  to  find  an  unusually  large 
number  of  fees  contributing.  Such  is  the  case,  as  the 
following  table  will  show: 

Scutage  at  2m 

M  s  d 

Clerical  tenants      ....      1060  10  8 
Sixty-one  lay  tenants  (each  5  or  more 

fees)288            ....      8444  6  0 
Other  lay  tenants  (each  fewer  than 

5  fees,  etc.)289          .          .          .       954  12  9 

Total                                                              6460  2  9 


284  "quosdam  ex  proceribus   Anglias   fore  mittendos   cum  strenuis 
militibus  .  .  .  Rex  denuncians   principibus   atque  militibus   quatinus 
ad  propria  remearent"  (Cogg.,  p.  153). 

285  Wend.,  above:  "pro  communi  auxilio  abbatum  Angliae"    (Rot. 
Litt.  Claw.,  I,  52a,  32b,  59b). 

286  "Reversus  autem  rex  cepit  de  comitibus,  baronibus,  militibus 
et  viris  religiosis  pecuniam  infinitam"  (Wend.,  above) ;  writs  granting 
tenants  the  right  to  collect  scutage  from  their  vassals  were  issued 
in  July  (Rot.  Litt.  Clau*.,  I,  43b). 

287  The  earl  Warenne  makes  a  fine  of  120m  (60  fees  so  that  it  is 
really  scutage)  that  his  knights  shall  not  cross,  to  be  paid  in  camera 
in  the  octave  of  St.  John,  that  is,  before  the  host  was  to  sail  and 
before  it  was  dismissed.     The  archbishop  of  Canterbury  also  fined 

70 


UNDER  JOHN  AND  HENRY  III 

Fine  Fees 

Clerical  tenants290            .          .  740  0     0            116 
Fifty-two    lay   tenants    (each    6    or 

more  fees)291            .          .          .  2300  12     6           681 
Other  lay  tenants   (each  fewer  than 

5  fees,  etc.)292     .          .          .  1801  4     7            263 

Total 4842  3     9          1060 

Additional293           .          .          .  808  1     8 

Sergeants 80  1     8 

Grand  total             ....  10690  9  10 

Paid,  7  and  8  John         .          .          .  7412  10  11 
Fees  taxed,  nearly  4000. 

In  many  counties,  no  list  of  writs  of  quittance  is  given 
and  in  the  others  comparatively  few  names  appear  of 
tenants  who  were  exempt.  As  we  know  that  only  a  small 
number  of  knights  performed  their  service,  we  may  con- 
clude that  the  writs  of  quittance  correspond  quite  closely 
to  the  tenants  who  served  in  the  host.  Furthermore,  we 

in  200m  to  be  paid  at  the  same  time  (Rot.  Obi.,  p.  366).  These 
entries  are  given  under  the  year  1206,  but  the  next  item  in  the  roll 
is  of  1205  and  refers  to  this  scutage;  and  the  Pipe  Roll  of  1205 
makes  the  earl  fine  in  120m. 

zss  Six  men  are  tenants  on  honors  in  hand  holding  182  fees ;  the 
following  holdings  respond  in  one  amount  through  the  sheriff  or  a 
custodian:  Gilbert  de  1'Aigle  35  fees,  rape  of  Hastings  62^  fees, 
the  earl  of  Warwick,  102^  fees. 

289  Of  this  sum,  187m  were  on  scattered  fees  of  great  barons  and 
424m  on  honors  in  hand,  leaving  not  over  350m  on  tenants  in  chief. 

290  Of  this  sum,  500m  were  on  the  abbot  of  St.  Edmunds  and  were 
only  partly  a  fine  for  service.    He  paid  500m  "pro  passagio  militum 
suorum  et  pro  habendo  scutagio  suo  et  de  auxilio  de  quolibet  feodo 
militis  i  marc,  et  pro  habenda  una  feria  octo  dierum  apud  Becles  et 
pro  habendo  uno  cuneo  apud  S.  Edmund'  cum  cambio"  (Pipe  Roll,  7 
John,  Norf.  and  Suff.,  m.  19b;  Rot.  Obi.,  p.  293). 

291  Of  this  sum,  17  men  holding  115  fees  on  honors  in  hand  were 
charged  with  510m,  leaving  35  lay  tenants  in  chief  who  fined. 

292  Of  this  sum,  860m  are  charged  against  157  fees  on  honors  in 
hand. 

293  Number  of  fees  unknown. 

71 


STUDIES  IN  TAXATION 

know   that   some   of   the   men   who   are   given   as    quieti 
accompanied  the  army.29* 

Nearly  all  the  churchmen  were  taxed  this  year;  only 
three  however  fined:  the  archbishop  of  Canterbury,  200m 
on  60  fees;295  the  abbot  of  Tavistock,  40m  on  his  15  or 
16  fees;299  the  abbot  of  St.  Edmunds,  500m  on  40  fees. 
Among  the  greater  barons  who  paid  scutage  were:  Earl 
Roger,  125%  fees;  Earl  Warenne,  60  fees;297  the  earl  of 
Arundel,  84%  fees  ;298  Earl  Ferrers,  68^  fees  ;299  William 
de  Albini,  33  fees;300  Warren  Fitz  Gerold,  about  53 
fees;301  Walter  de  Lacy,  51%  fees;302  William  de  Mow- 
bray,  60  fees;303  Hervey  Bagot,  60  fees.304  The  sums 
were  not  merely  charged;  they  were  partly  paid.  An 
increased  number  of  the  greater  lay  tenants  paid  fines. 
Those  holding  20  or  more  fees  were:  Thomas  de  St. 
Valery,  100m  fine  and  the  scutage  of  10  fees;305  Robert 
Fitz  Walter,  20m  fine  and  the  scutage  of  63%  fees;306 
the  earl  of  Chester,  100m  fine  which  includes  his  scutage 
on  40%  fees;307  Simon  de  Beauchamp,  100m  fine  which 

28*  The  earl  of  Salisbury  who  led  the  expedition  is  quit  (Pipe  Roll, 
7  John,  Wilts,  m.  14  d) ;  Robert  de  Turnham  was  fighting  in  France 
this  year  (Cogg.,  p.  152)  and  is  quit  (Pipe  Roll,  7  John,  York,  m. 
5  d) ;  Gilbert  Gaunt  had  his  scutage  because  his  brother  was  hi  the 
king's  service  (ibid.,  Notts,  and  Derby,  York,  Line.,  m.  5  d,  18  d, 
19  d;  Rot.  Litt.  Claus.,  I,  46a). 

295  Rot.  Obi.,  p.  366. 

296  Pipe  Roll,  7  John,  Devon,  m.  2  d. 
287  ibid.,  Norf.  and  Suff.,  m.  19b. 

298  ibid.,  Suss.,  m.  9. 

299  ibid.,  Notts,  and  Derby,  m.  19  d. 
800  Ibid.,  War.  and  Leic.,  m.  3  d. 
80i/6uJ.,  Essex  and  Herts.,  m.  15. 
302  ibid.,  Heref.,  m.  22  d. 

BOS  ibid.,  York,  m.  5  d. 

so*  Ibid.,  Staff. 

sos  ibid.,  Oxf.,  m.  12.    He  usually  paid  on  25  fees. 

SOB  ibid.,  Essex  and  Hert.,  m.  15. 

SOT  ibid.,  York,  m.  5  d. 

72 


UNDER  JOHN  AND  HENRY  III 

includes  his  scutage  on  45%%  fees;308  Ralph  de  Sumery, 
20m  fine  plus  his  scutage  on  50  fees  ;309  Norman  de  Arescy 
50m  fine  which  includes  his  scutage  on  20  fees.310  Except 
the  first,  the  fines  were  not  heavy.  The  separation  of 
the  fine  from  the  scutage  seems  to  imply  that  the  former 
was  for  the  personal  service  of  the  tenant  in  chief.311  The 
heaviest  fines  fell  on  the  small  tenants.  The  average  rate 
per  fee  (including  the  scutage  on  those  fees  which  fined) 
on  the  lesser  lay  tenants  (each  fewer  than  five  fees)  was 
about  seven  marks,  while  on  the  larger  lay  holdings  (each 
five  fees  of  more)  it  was  about  three  marks.312 

This  scutage  was  not  a  general  tax  levied  by  the 
exchequer  on  rear-vassals.  The  exemption  from  a  money 
contribution  of  those  tenants  who  received  writs  of  quit- 
tance extended  to  all  their  fees.313  But  did  the  sheriff 
ordinarily  collect  from  the  rear-vassals  of  those  tenants 
who  were  liable  for  scutage  or  fine  who  did  not  secure 
writs  of  quittance,  or  did  the  tenant  in  chief  respond  for 
his  whole  tax  either  to  the  sheriff  or  to  the  exchequer? 
Sometimes  the  former  was  the  case.  The  sheriff  paid  in 
at  the  exchequer  sums  which  seem  to  have  been  paid  him 

308  pipe  Roll,  7  John,  Bucks  and  Bedf.,  m.  6. 
309/fcjd.,  Staff. 
3io/6id.,  Line.,  m.  18  d. 

311  Thirteen  out  of  twenty-three  tenants,  each  holding  ten  or  more 
fees,  separate  the  fine  from  the  scutage.    In  the  small  holdings  there 
is  no  separation. 

312  See  above,  p.  71. 

sis  "Mandatum  est  vicecomiti  Bukingh'  quod  faciat  habere  Sahero 
de  Quency  scutagium  suum  in  balliva  sua.  Similiter  mandatum  est 
aliis  vicecomitibus  in  quorum  ballivis  terras  habet"  (Rot.  Litt. 
Claus.,  I,  43b).  Gilbert  Gaunt  has  writs  of  quittance  in  three 
bailiwicks:  Notts,  and  Derby,  York,  and  Line.  If  a  tenant  has  not 
secured  such  a  writ,  scutage  would  not  necessarily  be  taken  from  him. 
Hugh  de  Nevill  was  charged  with  10m  scutage;  no  payment  was 
made  and  later  a  note  is  added:  "sed  postea  habuit  quietantiam  per 
breve  regis  quod  est  in  forulo  marescalli  in  anno  sequent!"  (Pipe 
Roll,  7  John,  Glouc.,  m.  8  d) ;  see  also  Peter  de  Stokes,  m.  7  d. 

73 


STUDIES  IN  TAXATION 

by  the  rear-vassal,  though  perhaps  he  received  them  from 
the  steward  of  the  tenant  in  chief.314  But  many  of  the 
sums  received  in  this  way  were  small,  due  from  detached 
fees  of  baronies,  the  heads  of  which  lay  in  other  counties.318 
The  government  seems  to  have  recognized  that  it  could 
not  collect  from  the  sub-tenant.  In  Devonshire  eleven 
men  were  charged  with  scutage,  but  the  accounts  were 
crossed  off  because  an  inquest  showed  that  the  men  held 
nothing  in  chief  of  the  king.316  The  case  of  Cecilia  de 
Crevequor  illustrates  this  point.  She  was  disseized 
because  she  had  not  fined  with  the  king  for  her  passage. 
She  then  fined  in  forty  marks,  received  back  her  lands, 
and  was  granted  the  right  to  collect  scutage  from  her 
tenants.  It  is  to  be  observed  that  in  her  case  the  sheriff 
dealt  directly  with  the  tenant  in  chief  and  collected  no 


3i*  E.g.  the  sheriff  accounts  for  2m  of  Walter  Clifford  in  this 
county,  2m  on  one  fee  of  the  abbot  of  Hide,  etc.  (Pipe  Roll,  7  John, 
Berks,  m.  6  d) ;  see  like  cases  in  Rutland,  Warwick,  Bucks  and  Bedf. 
Orders  exist  to  the  sheriff  to  return  any  moneys  which  he  may  have 
collected  to  a  tenant  in  chief  who  has  obtained  the  right  to  collect 
his  scutage  from  his  vassals,  e.g.  for  the  earl  of  Clare  (Rot.  Litt. 
Clans.,  I,  43b).  Henry  de  Pinkeny  accounts  for  34m,  his  full  charge, 
in  Northamp.,  where  he  pays  12m  this  year,  for  34m  in  Bucks  and 
Bedf.,  where  he  pays  2m  and  the  sheriff  accounts  for  him  for  7m 
which  is  paid  in  Berks  (Pipe  Roll,  7  John,  m.  6,  6  d,  21  d). 

SIB  Sometimes  the  sheriff  of  the  county  where  the  head  of  the 
barony  lies  accounts  for  the  scutage;  this  does  not  necessarily  mean 
that  he  collects  it  from  the  rear-vassals;  the  tenant  in  chief  may 
have  paid  it  to  him  to  deliver  at  the  exchequer.  The  sheriff  con- 
tinually reports  the  number  of  fees  held  by  tenants  in  chief  in  his 
district:  "Comes  Ebroic  debet  scutagium  sed  vicecomes  dicit  que 
nullum  habet  feodum  in  comitatibus  suis"  (ibid.,  Bucks  and  Bedf., 
m.  6) ;  William  Marshal  5m  on  2^  fees  "sicut  vicecomes  dicit" 
(ibid.,  Berks,  m.  5a) ;  Geoffrey  de  Say  (ibid.,  m.  6). 

8i«  "sed  omnes  isti  non  debent  summoneri  quia  per  inquisitionem 
factam  nichil  tenent  de  rege  in  capite"  (Pipe  Roll,  9  John,  Notts,  and 
Derby) ;  also,  wife  of  John  de  Crioil  (ibid.,  10  John,  War.  and  Leic., 
m.  3). 

74 


UNDER  JOHN  AND  HENRY  III 

scutage  from  sub-tenants.317  Further,  for  his  fees  lying 
in  one  county  a  tenant  often  accounted  in  another,  show- 
ing that  there  was  no  collection  by  the  sheriff.318  The 
tenants  in  chief  would  oppose  such  a  collection,  for  they 
preferred  to  do  the  work  themselves.  When  they  fined 
for  their  passage,  they  were  allowed  not  only  to  remain 
at  home,  but  also  to  collect  scutage  from  their  tenants.318 
Those  tenants  who  did  not  fine,  but  paid  scutage  only, 
obtained  the  same  privilege.320 

SIT  Rot.  Obi.,  p.  302;  another  case  of  disseizin,  Henfridus  de 
Criketot  (ibid.,  p.  301). 

sis  Earl  Ferrers  owed  ll^m  in  Berks  "sed  respondet  in  Noting- 
hamsira"  (Pipe  Roll,  7  John,  Berks,  m.  5a) ;  Eustace  de  Vescy  held 
fees  in  York,  Northumberland,  and  Norfolk  and  Suffolk;  he  pays 
4m  in  York,  pays  fine  and  scutage  in  the  second  and  is  quit  in  the 
last;  William  Earl  Warenne  is  quietus  in  Essex  and  Herts.,  is 
charged  with  120m  fine  in  Norf.  and  Suff.,  with  120m  fine  in  Bucks 
where  the  roll  adds  "sed  requirendus  est  in  Surreia,"  and  in  Surrey 
with  120m  "qui  requirebatur"  in  Bucks.  Robert  Fitz  Walter  "debet 
iiii  marc,  de  eodem  (i.e.  scutage  of  1205),  sed  non  debet  summoneri 
quia  respondit  de  toto  hoc  scutagio  in  Essex"  (ibid.,  10  John,  Cant, 
and  Hunt.,  m.  9)  ;  William  de  Cornhull  (ibid.,  1  John,  m.  5a). 

sis  "Roaldus  constabularius  Richemund'  dat  domino  regi  80m 
pro  passagio  suo  et  pro  habendo  scutagio  suo"  (Rot.  Obi.,  p.  288). 
The  separation  of  the  fine  from  the  scutage  does  not  mean  that  the 
tenant  in  chief  pays  the  king  a  fine  for  his  personal  service  while  the 
king  collects  scutage  from  the  sub-tenants,  unless  there  is  a  bargain 
to  that  effect.  Robert  Fitz  Walter  fined  in  20m  in  addition  to  his 
scutage  and  he  collected  the  scutage  with  his  own  hand  from  his 
vassals  (Rot.  Litt.  Claus.,  I,  43b) ;  a  similar  case  in  Matilda  de 
Chandos  (Rot.  Obi.,  p.  304). 

320  William  de  Mowbray  paid  only  scutage  this  year  (see  above, 
p.  72,  note  303;  he  received  a  writ  to  collect  his  scutage  by  his  own 
hand  and  respond  for  it  at  the  exchequer  (Rot.  Obi.,  p.  306)  ;  the 
archbishop  of  York  paid  scutage  only  and  received  a  like  writ  (Rot. 
Litt.  Claus.,  I,  46a)  ;  the  earl  of  Arundel  paid  scutage  only  in  1205; 
one  of  his  tenants  was  pardoned  his  scutage  (Roger  de  la  Zouche, 
16m)  and  the  earl  was  likewise  acquitted  this  amount,  so  that  he 
must  have  collected  from  his  vassals  (Pipe  Roll,  7  John,  Suss., 
m.  9) ;  for  William  de  Albini  and  the  earl  of  Clare  (Rot.  Litt.  Claus., 
I,  43b).  "Johannis  filius  Hugonis  habet  scutagium  suum  et  dominus 
rex  illud  computari  faciet  dominis  de  quibus  ipse  tenet"  (ibid.,  46a). 

75 


STUDIES  IN  TAXATION 

All  this  shows,  moreover,  that  the  scutage  was  shifted 
by  the  lord  to  his  vassal,  though  to  do  so  required  the 
king's  consent,  the  sheriff  being  instructed  to  allow  the 
tenant  to  collect  his  scutage.  The  sheriff  was  also  to 
report  the  amount.321  Compliance  with  this  order  may 
explain  the  entries  in  the  Pipe  Roll  of  amounts  written 
opposite  the  names  of  tenants  with  no  statement  concern- 
ing payment.  In  this  way  the  king  had  a  check  on  his 
tenants.  But  the  writ  to  the  sheriff  meant  more  than 
this;  if  the  tenant  were  unable  to  force  his  vassals  to 
pay,  the  sheriff  came  to  his  aid  and  distrained  them.325 
The  fine  of  the  tenant  in  chief  did  not  fall  upon  the  rear- 
vassal,  who  was  liable  for  scutage  only.328  The  king  dealt 
directly  with  the  rear-vassal  in  another  way,  by  pardoning 
him  his  scutage.  In  that  case,  his  lord  was  also  acquitted 
of  that  amount.324 

Returns  of  a  tallage  were  made  in  twenty-six  counties. 
Some  of  the  shires  were  the  same  as  those  tallaged  in 
1204;  in  part  of  these  the  accounts  seem  to  have  been 
additional  returns  of  the  same  tax;  in  others  a  new  levy 
was  made.321  The  assessment  was  made  by  the  itinerant 
justices  and  was  collected  by  the  sheriff.326  Some  towns 

•21  The  writs  for  William  de  Albini  and  the  archbishop  of  York 
(Rot.  Litt.  Glaus.,  I,  43b,  46a). 
822  The  writ  for  the  archbishop  of  York  (ibid.,  46a). 

323  Thus  when  the  tenant  in  chief  fined  in  a  lump  sum   for  his 
passage   and  his   scutage,  he  could   collect  only   scutage   from  his 
vassals  (Rot.  Obi.,  p.  288) ;  when  he  fined  in  a  certain  sum  and  his 
scutage,  the  latter  is  evidently  the  sum  which  the  rear-vassals  are 
to  pay;  see  the  case  of  Robert  Fitz  Walter  (see  above,  p.  75). 

324  See  above,  p.  75. 

325  Worcester  pays  £43  3s  lid  in  1204  and  40m  in  1205  (Pipe  Roll, 
6  and  7  John,  Wig.) ;  Salop  80m  in  1204  and  50m  in  1205   (ibid., 
Salop) ;  Hereford  to  the  sheriff  58m  10s  4d  in  1204  and  50m  in  1205 
(ibid.,  Heref.). 

328  in  Kent,  the  tallage  was  laid  by  the  justiciar,  "per  j  usticiarium" 
(Pipe  Roll,  7  John,  Kent,  m.  9  d).  In  Worcestershire  is  the  title: 
"de  amerciamentis  et  taillagiis  per  Robertum  de  Berkelai  et  Johannem 

76 


UNDER  JOHN  AND  HENRY  III 

and  vills  had  lump  sums  charged  against  them,  that  is, 
they  agreed  to  pay  a  certain  sum  and  settle  the  incidence 
themselves ;  in  others  the  assessment  was  made  per 
capita.827  The  amount  charged  was  over  3,000m.828 

THE  TAXATION  OF  1206 

This  year  John  was  able  to  carry  out  his  invasion  of 
France.  On  May  27,  he  sailed  for  La  Rochelle  with  a 
great  army.329  The  campaign  lasted  till  October  6,  or 
over  four  months.33'  The  taxation  of  the  year  consisted 
of  a  scutage  at  twenty  shillings  per  fee  with  fines  ne 
transfretet  and  a  tallage.331  The  following  is  the  account : 

Scutage  at  20s 

M       s  d 

Clerical  tenants      .          .          .          .        251     3  4 

Lay  tenants  (each  5  or  more  fees)   .        112  10  0 
Other  lay  tenants  (each  fewer  than  5 

fees,  etc.)       .          .          .                  180  11  4 

Total 544  11  4 

ftlium  Hugonis";  the  sheriff  accounts  for  these  sums  at  the  exchequer 
(ibid.,  m.  22). 

327  Ibid.;  e.g.  in  Devon,  there  are  many  persons  in  the  roll  charged 
with  tallage,  but  the  city  of  Exeter  accounts   for  £100  and  three 
palfreys  (ibid.,  Devon,  m.  2  d). 

328  in  this  sum  are  included  the  following  tallages : 

£    s    d 

Line 31  17  (in  8  John,  m.  10) 

Cant,  and  Hunt.      .         .     93    6    8  (in  8  John,  m.  16) 

Oxford     .         .         .         .     64  11  10  (in  9  John,  m.  5) 

These  seem  to  belong  to  the  tallage  of  1205. 

329  Rot.  Litt.  Pat.,  pp.  62b,  64b,  65a;  Wend.,  Ill,  186;  Liebermann, 
p.  144;  Wav.,  p.  258;  Annales  Honasterii  de  Wintonia,  ed.  Luard, 
Rolls  Series,  p.  79. 

ssoRymer,  I,  95. 

33i  There  are  also  some  references  to  a  contribution  by  religious 
houses,  irrespective  of  their  tenure.  They  may  be  deferred  entries 

77 


STUDIES  IN  TAXATION 

Fine  Fees 

Clerical  tenants     .          .          .  670  11  7           220 
Thirty  lay  tenants  (each  5  or  more 

fees)332            .          .          .          .  1174  6  6            342 
Other  lay  tenants  (each  fewer  than  5 

fees,  etc.)333              .          .          .  1349  5  4           306 

Total 3194  10  1            868 

Additional384           .          .          .  324  0  0 

Sergeants 123  11  8 

Total  charged        .          .          .          .  4187  6  5 

Paid,  8  and  9  John          .           .           .  3128  11  8 
Fees  taxed,  not  over  1500. 

If  a  tenant  performed  his  service,  he  obtained  a  writ 
of  exemption  from  scutage.  A  considerable  number  of 
barons  and  knights  went  from  Devonshire  and  Cornwall, 
as  nine  naves  were  employed  to  carry  them.  The  only 
fees  taxed  in  these  counties  were  those  of  the  abbot  of 
Tavistock,  the  bishop  of  Exeter,  and  four  small  tenants 
who  held  together  about  ten  fees.  The  list  of  writs  of 
quittance  is  long  and  complete;  it  included  William 
Briwerre,  Henry  Fitz  Count,  and  Reginald  de  Mohun 
who  led  the  fleet.335  The  earl  of  Salisbury,  Hugo  de 
Chaurces,  and  Paganus  de  Chaurces  were  in  the  cam- 
paign336 and  received  writs  of  quittance.331  The  scutage 

of  the  dona  of  1205.  The  abbot  and  convent  of  Cernel,'  30m  "ut 
sint  quieti  de  communi  auxilio";  the  abbot  of  Burton,  40m  "de 
promissione  ad  sustentationem  regni";  the  abbot  of  Peterborough, 
60m  (Rot.  Obi,  pp.  343,  354,  356). 

332  Of  this  sum,  9  men  who  held  56  fees  on  honors  in  hand  were 
charged  with  172  marks. 

sss  There  were  688m  charged  against  197  fees  on  honors  in  hand, 
leaving  661m  on  109  fees  of  tenants  in  chief. 

334  Scutage  or  fine ;  number  of  fees  unknown. 

sss  Pipe  Roll,  8  John,  Devon,  Dors,  and  Somers.,  m.  13  d,  14,  14  d. 

336  "De  praestitis  factis  in  Pictavia:  Comes  Sarresbiriae  100m,"  etc. 
(ibid.,  Wilts,  m.  18  d). 

337  The  earl  of  Salisbury  in  Wilts  and  Yorkshire;  Paganus  in  Bucks 
and  Dorset. 

78 


UNDER  JOHN  AND  HENRY  III 

proper  was  not  very  important.  No  great  lay  tenant 
paid  it,  though  several  of  the  chief  prelates  did  so  (the 
bishops  of  Hereford,  Bath,  Exeter,  Salisbury,  and 
Worcester,  and  the  abbot  of  Hide).  No  bishop  was 
charged  with  a  fine.  The  fines  on  religious  houses 
amounted  to  about  double  what  their  scutage  would  have 
been.  In  some  cases  it  might  be  much  more  than  this ; 
the  abbot  of  Malmesbury  paid  21m  10s  6d  on  his  three 
fees.336  Lay  tenants  holding  20  fees  or  more  who  fined 
were:  Walter  de  Lacy,  40m  fine  and  £51  5s  scutage;338 
Thomas  de  St.  Valery,  150m  fine  on  25  fees;340  Gilbert 
Peke,  40m  fine  and  £19  Is  6d  scutage;341  and  Hervey 
Bagot,  12m  fine  and  45m  scutage.3*2  The  fines  fell 
heaviest  on  the  men  with  small  holdings,  many  of  whom 
were  not  tenants  in  chief,  but  tenants  on  honors  in 
hand.345  Among  the  lesser  tenants,  the  fine  and  the 
scutage  were  almost  always  lumped  together ;  while  among 
the  greater  vassals,  they  were  often  separated.  The 
abbot  of  Glastonbury  paid  40m  fine  and  60m  scutage;344 
William  Fitz  Hamon,  20m  fine  and  22M>m  scutage;345 
Nigel  de  Luvetot,  20m  fine  and  22%m  scutage  ;346  Richard 
Basset,  20m  fine  and  22%m  scutage;347  the  abbot  of 

338  pipe  Roll,  8  John,  Wilts,  m.  18;  the  abbey  of  Ramsey,  in  hand, 
paid  £4  of  scutage  and  £73  3s  Id  "de  auxilio  posito  per  maneria" 
(Cartularium  Monasterii  de  Rameseia,  Rolls  Series,  I,  231).     Prob- 
ably this  should  be  classed  as  a  tallage  on  the  demesne  rather  than 
as  a  fine. 

339  pipe  Roll,  8  John,  Heref.,  m.  7. 
**°Ibid.,  Oxf.,  m.  12  d. 

3*i  Ibid.,  Norf.  and  Suff.,  m.  4. 

3*2  pipe  Roll,  8  John,  Staff.     This  entry  is  peculiar;  he  held  60 
fees. 

3*3  See  above,  p.  78,  note  333. 

3*4  Pipe  Roll,  8  John,  Dors,  and  Somers.,  m.  13  d. 

345  Ibid.,  Bucks  and  Bedf.,  m.  4  d. 

346  ibid.,  Cant,  and  Hunt.,  m.  16  d. 

347  Ibid.,  Northamp.,  m.  17  d. 

79 


STUDIES  IN  TAXATION 

Westminster,  10m  fine  and  22M>m  scutage.348  In  some 
of  these  cases  the  fine  represented  not  merely  the  personal 
service  of  the  tenant  in  chief  and  that  of  his  demesne,  but 
an  amount  as  large  as  the  scutage  from  his  holding,  so 
that  the  king  was  really  being  paid  for  the  same  thing 
twice  over.  The  scutage  thus  had  the  appearance  of  a 
royal  tax  on  the  rear- vassals. 

Other  indications,  as  in  previous  years,  show  not  only 
that  the  scutage  fell  ultimately  on  the  rear-vassal,  but 
also  that  the  exchequer  knew  to  an  extent  the  distribution 
of  the  fees  of  the  tenants  in  chief,  and  was  thus  prepared 
to  collect  and  in  some  cases  actually  did  collect  the 
amounts  charged  against  the  latter  from  the  sub-tenants. 
Tenants  who  secured  writs  of  quittance  had  that  fact 
noted  in  each  county  where  their  lands  lay,  not  merely 
in  the  one  where  the  head  of  the  barony  was.34£  The  prior 
of  Coventry  held  most  of  his  fees  in  the  counties  of  War- 
wick and  Leicester,  but  owed  10  shillings  in  Northampton- 
shire.350 The  abbot  of  Westminster  (10m  fine  and  £15 
scutage)  paid  £12  of  his  scutage  in  Worcestershire  and 
owed  £3  "qui  requirendus  est  in  London'."351  Walter  de 
Baillolet  held  of  the  abbot  of  Peterborough.  He  was 
pardoned  his  scutage  on  two  fees  per  breve  regis  and  so 
both  he  and  the  abbot  were  quit.355  Walter  de  Lacy  paid 
his  scutage  in  five  counties.353  But  it  does  not  follow 
that  the  sheriff  in  general  collected  from  the  rear-vassals 
of  those  tenants  who  owed  scutage  or  fine.  The  tenant 
in  chief  might  personally  account  in  one  sum  for  the 

348  ibid.,  Lond.  and  Midd.,  m.  6. 

349  E.g.  the  earl  of  Chester  is  quit  in  five  bailiwicks :  Gloucester, 
Bucks   and   Bedf.,   Notts,   and   Derby,   York,    Berks;    Warren   Fitz 
Gerold  in  eight;  William  Earl  Marshal  in  eight. 

350  Ibid.,  Northamp.,  m.  17  d. 

351  Ibid.,  Wigorn.,  m.  20  d. 

352  Ibid.,  Northamp.,  m.  17  d. 

353  ibid.,  Hereford,  Gloucester,  Oxford,  Salop,  and  Berks. 

80 


UNDER  JOHN  AND  HENRY  III 

whole  amount  due  from  his  holding.     The  fine  of  Thomas 
de  St.  Valery  covered  all  his  lands.354 

In  each  of  the  cases  cited,  the  tenant  compounded  this 
year;  he  obtained  no  writ  of  quittance.  A  different  sort 
of  case  would  be  where  the  baron  was  exempted,  yet  the 
rear-vassal  paid  a  scutage  to  the  king.  If  this  were 
commonly  done,  the  scutage  would  not  be  a  composition 
for  the  service  of  the  tenants  in  chief,  but  an  aid,  a  general 
tax  on  all  the  fees  in  England.  Robert  Marmiun  had  a 
general  writ  of  quittance  yet  the  sheriff  collected  ten 
shillings  in  Northamptonshire.355  The  practice  of  the 
exchequer  seems  to  have  been  not  to  collect  such  sums  if 
the  tenant  in  chief  had  a  writ  of  exemption.  The  arch- 
bishop of  York  was  charged  with  63s  4d  in  Gloucester- 
shire, but  the  roll  adds  that  he  was  quit  in  Yorkshire;356 
the  bishop  of  Durham  owed  half  a  mark  in  Rutland,  but 
he  did  not  pay  it  as  he  was  quit  in  Yorkshire  ;357  Peter  de 
Anesie  of  the  fee  of  Baldwin  Wak  owed  ten  shillings,  but 
was  acquitted  as  his  lord  was  exempted  ;358  John  Briwerre 
who  held  one  fee  of  William  Briwerre  was  charged  with  two 
marks,  but  for  the  same  reason  it  was  not  collected.356 

35*  Thomas  de  St.  Valery  is  quit  in  Bucks  and  Bedf.  and  in  Berks, 
pays  £100  fine  in  Oxfordshire,  is  charged  with  £100  fine  in  Lond. 
and  Midd.,  but  the  roll  states  "sed  respondet  inde  in  Oxeneford' " 
(ibid.,  Lond.  and  Midd.,  m.  6) ;  Gilbert  Peke  pays  10s  in  Berks,  is 
charged  with  his  whole  fine  and  scutage  in  Norf.  and  Suff.  and  is 
quit  in  Cant,  and  Hunt.;  Cecilia  countess  of  Hereford  is  quit  in 
Gloucester  and  pays  in  Kent;  Ralph  Dairel  pays  20s  on  }£  fee  in 
Berks,  is  charged  with  it  in  Lond.  and  Midd.,  but  "quietus  est  in 
honore  Warengef"  (ibid.,  m.  6,  21  d) ;  Philip  de  Girund  pays  the 
sheriff  of  Bucks  and  Bedf.  9m  on  3  fees;  he  is  also  charged  in  the 
roll  with  scutage  in  Kent  for  these  3  fees,  "sed  quietus  est  in  Buking- 
hamsira  in  summa  ix  marc."  (ibid.,  Kent,  m.  5  d). 

355  pipe  Roll,  8  John,  Oxf.,  War.  and  Leic.,  m.  1  d,  12  d;  9  John, 
Northamp. 

356  ibid.,  8  John,  Glouc.,  m.  2. 

357  ibid.,  Rutland,  m.  13  d. 
sss  Ibid.,  9  John,  Rutland. 

359  Ibid.,  8  John,  Norf.  and  Suff.,  m.  4.    Four  tenants  on  the  honor 

81 


STUDIES  IN  TAXATION 

Returns  of  the  tallage  are  given  in  thirty-two  counties ; 
the  amount  charged  was  nearly  4,000  marks. 36C  Persons 
appear  in  the  roll  charged  with  tallage;  vills  and  towns 
have  lump  sums  charged  against  them ;  that  is,  the  tallage 
was  made  in  some  cases  per  capita  and  in  others  the  town 
or  vill  fined  in  a  lump  sum  for  its  contribution.  The 
sheriff  collected  the  tax,  but  the  assessment  was  probably 
made  by  the  itinerant  justices.361 

Despite  the  long  campaign,  John  did  not  lack  ready 
money  in  the  autumn.  Early  in  November  he  acknowl- 
edged the  receipt  of  14,000  marks  from  England.365  In 
December  he  seems  to  have  had  over  15,000  marks  of 
treasure  at  Porchester.363 

of  Richmond  were  charged  with  scutage;  "sed  isti  quatuor  non 
debuerunt  summoneri  quia  per  inquisitionem  factam  tenent  per 
feodum  militia  de  honore  Richemund'  et  debet  servitium  eorum 
exigi  a  Petro  de  Leonibus"  (ibid.,  9  John,  Hants,  m.  14  d).  The 
exchequer  acts  toward  this  warden  probably  as  it  does  toward  a 
tenant  in  chief. 

380  There  is  no  tallage  on  London  in  the  roll.  The  return  for 
Oxfordshire  is  given  in  9  John  (m.  5).  In  some  counties  (Salop, 
Cant,  and  Hunt.,  Bucks  and  Bedf.,  Northamp.)  two  levies  appear, 
one  of  which  probably  belongs  to  a  preceding  year. 

36i  For  an  example  of  persons  charged  with  tallage,  see  Pipe  Roll, 
8  John,  Surr.,  m.  12;  "De  taillagiis  et  ammerciamentis  per  Walterum 
de  Creppinges  et  Henricum  de  Ver  et  socios  suos.  Idem  vicecomes 
r  c  de  c  et  xlvii  marcis  et  iiii  sol.  et  iii  den.  de  misericordiis  et  tail- 
lagiis hominum  et  villarum  quorum  nomina  annotantur  in  rotulo  que 
praedicti  liberaverunt  in  thesauro;  in  thesauro  liberavit  in  Ixxi  talliis 
et  quietus  est"  (Pipe  Roll,  8  John,  Berks,  m.  21  d).  When  a  town 
pays  a  round  sum,  it  is  probable  that  it  fined  with  the  justices  for 
this  amount  and  apportioned  the  tax  itself;  when  it  pays  an  irregular 
amount,  it  is  probable  that  the  justices  levied  the  tallage  per  capita; 
e.g.  "Burgus  de  Notingeham  r  c  de  xii  li.  et  iiii  sol.  de  taillagio" 
(ibid.,  Notts,  and  Derby,  m.  8  d). 

sea  R0t.  Litt.  Glaus.,  I,  75a. 

sea  Ibid,  and  75b,  77a.  In  these  two  references  from  the  Close  Roll 
there  are  four  sums  of  money:  12,000m,  2,000m,  10,000m,  and  5,000m. 
If  there  is  no  duplication,  we  have  the  interesting  fact  that  John 
received  in  November  and  December  nearly  30,000m.  There  can  be 
no  doubt  that  he  received  14,000m,  for  he  acknowledged  the  receipt 

82 


UNDER  JOHN  AND  HENRY  III 

of  that  sum  while  he  was  in  Poitou  and  it  is  possible  that  he  brought 
part  of  it  back  with  him  to  England,  yet  in  that  case,  it  is  strange 
that  he  immediately  sent  5,000m  back  to  Poitou.  It  would  seem 
more  likely  that  the  5,000m  were  a  fresh  sum  which  he  sent  out.  It 
is  also  possible  that  the  5,000m  were  a  part  of  the  sum  of  10,000m 
which  was  in  the  hands  of  the  wardens  of  the  treasure. 


83 


CHAPTER  III 

THE  THIRTEENTH  OF  1207 

HE  thirteenth  of  revenues  and  moveables  was  the  last 
•"•  of  a  series  of  taxes  on  property  which  were  levied 
in  John's  reign.  The  basis  of  this  levy  was  that  on  which 
the  great  taxes  of  the  future  were  to  be  taken ;  the  amount 
which  it  yielded  was  very  large ;  the  assessment  was  quite 
generally  carried  out;  and  the  plea  for  its  levy  was 
ingenious  and  unanswerable  at  the  time.  These  facts 
combine  to  make  the  thirteenth  of  1207  the  most  impor- 
tant single  levy  of  the  reign.  That  it  was  so  regarded 
by  the  men  of  the  time  is  doubtful.  To  them  it  seems 
to  have  appeared  as  a  rather  unusual  levy,  but  on  the 
whole  as  of  less  importance  than  the  scutage  because  it 
was  taken  only  once.  Since  this  is  the  last  example  of 
a  series  of  taxes  on  property  on  both  a  great  and  a  small 
scale  in  John's  reign,  it  looks  as  though  the  government 
had  experimented  till  finally  it  knew  the  form  of  taxation 
that  would  yield  the  most.  But  that  was  not  enough. 
There  must  be  found  a  method  by  which  the  new  tax 
could  be  legally  taken.  Different  devices  had  already 
been  employed  in  the  case  of  the  carucage  and  the  seventh 
of  1203,  but  they  could  only  be  employed  in  very  excep- 
tional cases.  The  method  was  found  in  1207  when  the 
king  asked  for  a  gracious  aid.  Such  an  aid  needed  the 
consent  of  the  taxpayers.  This  was  considered  to  have 
been  obtained  when  the  tenants  in  chief  agreed  to  the 
thirteenth.  Thus  the  root  of  the  levy  is  to  be  found  in 
feudal  custom.  A  request  from  the  king  for  a  gracious 
aid  was  almost  without  precedent,  though  the  practice 

84 


UNDER  JOHN  AND  HENRY  III 

was  common  among  his  vassals.  At  first  sight,  it  might 
be  thought  surprising  that  the  king  could  succeed  in 
taking  an  aid  from  the  great  barons  while  he  seems  to 
have  failed  to  obtain  a  grant  from  the  parochial  clergy. 
The  explanation  lies  in  the  fact  that  the  aid  on  the  clergy 
was  without  precedent  while  the  aid  on  the  tenants  in 
chief  found  plenty  of  precedent  in  feudal  practice. 

Now  the  feudal  aid  was  to  be  taken  only  in  case  of  a 
lord's  great  need.  What  was  the  need  in  1207?  John 
had  a  large  sum  of  money  on  hand  in  the  fall  of  1206; 
he  had  just  made  a  truce  with  Philip  II  and  he  had  no 
debts  to  pay.  Nevertheless  the  excuse  assigned  was  the 
war  against  the  French,1  which  the  king  planned  to  renew 
at  some  future  time  not  definitely  fixed.  Levied  as  it  was 
to  provide  money  against  a  remote  need,  the  thirteenth 
was  a  precedent  of  great  importance  for  establishing  a 
right  of  arbitrary  taxation  by  the  king.  The  ease  with 
which  the  opposition  to  the  tax  in  the  council  was  over- 
come shows  the  great  power  of  John;  it  also  reveals  the 
lack  of  unity  among  the  baronage  and  the  difficulty  of 
finding  an  effective  ground  for  resistance.  The  opposition 
did  not  end  with  the  dissolution  of  the  council,  but  it  was 
fruitless;  the  collection  went  steadily  on.  This  throws 
an  instructive  light  on  scutage.  After  the  tax  had  been 
put  in  charge,  it  was  difficult  to  resist  payment.  Here 
lay  one  advantage  to  the  king  of  putting  the  scutage  in 
charge  when  the  host  assembled. 

The  method  of  assessment  shows  a  return  to  the  plan 
employed  in  the  tenth  of  1188,  the  personal  oath  of  the 

i"ad  defensionem  regni  nostri  et  recuperationem  juris  nostri" 
(Select  Charters,  Stubbs,  8th  ed.,  p.  283;  Rot.  Litt.  Pat.,  p.  72b) ; 
"ad  recuperandam  haereditatem  suam  in  Normannia"  (Wav.,  p.  258); 
"ad  manutenendum  guerram  suam  contra  regem  Franciae"  (Historia 
et  Cartularium  Monasterii  8.  Petri  Oloucestrice ,  Rolls  Series,  I,  23) ; 
"ad  opus  regium,  sub  praetextu  terrarum  quas  .  .  .  amiserat,  per 
werram  recuperandarum"  (Cov.,  II,  198). 

85 


STUDIES  IN  TAXATION 

property  holder  before  the  justices.  Perhaps  the  king 
thought  that  the  fear  of  punishment  for  false  swearing 
would  be  more  effective  if  each  man  were  held  to  account 
for  his  own  property  than  if  a  jury  were  employed. 
Perhaps  it  was  thought  that  the  former  method  would 
be  quicker.  The  clergy  opposed  the  assessment  on  their 
demesne  lands  and  the  king  allowed  them  to  compound, 
an  illustration  of  the  strength  of  the  opposition  to  a  tax 
on  property. 

At  first  sight,  the  thirteenth  seems  to  have  been  with- 
out result  on  the  financial  policy  of  the  government,  for 
another  tax  on  moveables  did  not  come  till  1225.  The 
reason  why  none  was  taken  in  John's  reign  lies  in  the 
political  situation.  The  king  could  not  levy  it  again  till 
a  certain  interval  had  passed.  By  1212,  the  trouble  with 
the  pope  and  the  barons  had  reached  such  a  pass  that  a 
tax  on  moveables  was  no  longer  feasible.  In  Henry  Ill's 
reign,  when  an  unusual  effort  was  to  be  put  forth  in  1225 
in  order  to  retain  the  provinces  in  France,  the  scutage 
and  the  carucage  were  passed  over  and  a  tax  on  move- 
ables taken.  There  can  hardly  be  a  doubt  that  this  was 
because  of  the  memory  of  the  great  yield  of  the  thirteenth 
of  1207.2 

Two  meetings  of  the  magnates  were  held  in  connection 
with  the  taxation  of  1207.  John  had  returned  from 
Poitou  in  December,  1206;  the  great  council  was  sum- 
moned and  met  at  London  on  January  8,  1207.  It  was 
composed  of  the  bishops,  abbots,  priors,  earls,  and  barons. 
The  king  asked  the  bishops  and  abbots  to  make  him  a 
grant  from  the  revenues  of  the  beneficed  clergy.3  It  was 

2  That  the  thirteenth  was  not  forgotten  is  shown  by  the  reference 
to  it  in  1242  when  the  barons  speak  of  it  as  granted  to  Henry  III 
(Matthew  Paris,  Chronica  Majora,  IV,  186).  As  a  thirteenth  had 
never  been  granted  to  him,  it  is  clear  that  the  barons  were  thinking 
of  the  levy  of  1207. 

a  Wav.,  p.  258. 

86 


UNDER  JOHN  AND  HENRY  III 

not  the  first  time  that  he  had  tried  to  levy  a  tax  on  them, 
for  in  1202  he  had  written  to  the  clergy  of  the  province 
of  Canterbury  asking  for  an  aid.4  In  1207,  the  prelates 
refused  to  accede  to  his  request.  The  council  was  pro- 
rogued till  February  2,  when  it  met  at  Oxford  with  a  very 
full  attendance.  The  king  repeated  his  request  and  after 
discussion  he  was  again  refused.  He  then  apparently 
abandoned  his  attempt  to  persuade  the  ecclesiastics 
present  to  consent  to  this  tax  on  the  property  of  the 
churches,  but  he  did  not  give  up  his  intention  of  getting 
a  tax  granted.  After  a  session  of  a  week,  the  council 
agreed  to  levy  a  thirteenth  on  personal  property  and 
revenues.5  Although  there  was  opposition  to  this  also, 
it  was  unsuccessful.8  The  tax  was  levied  on  the  property 
not  only  of  laymen,  but  also  of  the  clergy.  The  chroni- 
clers state  that  both  the  clergy  and  the  laity  paid  it.7 
When  some  of  the  prelates  compounded  in  a  lump  sum 
for  their  thirteenth,  the  king  advised  his  collectors  of  the 
fact  and  this  was  evidently  a  notice  to  them  not  to  make 

*  Rot.  Litt.  Pat.,  p.  18a. 

6  "congregata  infinita  multitudine  praelatorum  ecclesiae  et  magnati- 
bus   regni"    (Wav.,  p.   258);   Wend.,   Ill,  209;   Cov.,   II,   198;   Gerv. 
Cant.,   II,   Ivii;   Select   Charters,  p.   283;    Wint.,   p.   79;   Annales   de 
Margan,  ed.  Luard,  Rolls  Series,  p.  28;  Annales  Monasterii  de  Burton, 
ed.  Luard,  Rolls  Series,  p.  209;  Dunst.,  p.  29;  Annales  Monasterii 
de  Bermundeseia,  p.  450;   Annales  Cambrics,  p.  66.     The  Waverley 
chronicle  says  that  the  council  was  held  on  February  9  and  Wendover 
on  February  2;  February  9  was  the  close  of  the  session  ("in  octavis 
Purificationis    B.     Mariae,    scilicet    ad    terminum    concilii,"    Select 
Charters,  p.   283)    and   probably   February   2   was   the   date   of  the 
opening. 

«  "cunctis  murmurantibus" ;  cf.  the  action  of  the  archbishop  of  York. 

7  "quilibet  laicus  homo  .  .  .  de  cuj  uscunque  f eodo  sit  ...  det  nobis 
in  auxilium  etc."  (Select  Charters,  above) ;  "tarn  de  laicis  quam  viris 
ecclesiasticis  et  praelatis"   (Wend.,  Ill,  210)  ;  "ab  ecclesiasticis  sicut 
a  laicis"  (Cov.,  II,  199) ;  "de  episcopis,  abbatibus,  prioribus,  canonicis, 
clericis,   laicis,  divitibus,   et   de   omni   populo   simul"    (Chronicles   of 
the  Reigns  of  Stephen,  Henry  II  and  Richard  I,  ed.  Hewlett,  Rolls 
Series,  Continuation  of  William  of  Newburgh's  History,  II,  509). 

87 


STUDIES  IN  TAXATION 

the  assessment  on  those  lands.8  Further,  when  some 
churchmen  refused  to  pay  anything,  the  king  dealt  with 
them  in  summary  style.  The  case  of  the  archbishop  of 
York  is  familiar.  As  he  refused  to  yield,  he  was  obliged 
to  leave  England,  and  the  king  took  the  archbishopric 
into  his  hand.9  The  abbot  of  Seleby  had  to  pay  forty 
marks  and  two  palfreys  that  the  king  would  remit  his 
malevolence  because  he  had  refused  to  give  the  thirteenth, 
for  which  he  was  ordered  to  be  amerced  ad  plus  quod 
posset.10  The  abbot  of  Furness  refused  to  pay  and  his 
goods  were  seized  and  sold.11  This  is  evidence  enough 
to  show  that  the  clergy  as  well  as  the  laity  were  liable 
for  the  thirteenth.  The  churches  were  probably  not 
taxed,  or  if  they  were,  the  collectors  did  not  at  once  make 
a  general  assessment  on  them,  though  some  of  the  fines 
are  said  to  have  been  paid  partly  for  quittance  of  the  aid 
owed  by  the  parochial  churches.12  After  the  council  in 
February,  the  king  sent  letters  to  the  clergy  of  Canter- 
bury, and  received  a  reply  that  they  would  decide  after 
Easter  what  aid  they  would  make  him.  Probably  no 
grant  was  made  at  that  time,  for  John  wrote  again  in 
May  asking  that  each  give  him  a  lump  sum.13  At  any 
rate  the  king  did  not  collect  the  thirteenth  from  the 
churches  on  the  authority  of  the  grant  in  the  great 
council.  The  Cistercians  and  the  Hospitallers  were 
exempt.14  The  king  did  not  insist  on  an  assessment  of 
the  property  of  the  prelates.  Some  paid  a  lump  sum 
called  a  fine  or  a  donum.  This  was  not  a  payment 

s Rot.  Litt.  Claus.,  I,  79a,  bishop  of  Bath;  84b,  abbot  of  Abingdon; 
79b.,  prior  of  Hurl'. 
9  Wend.,  Ill,  210. 
loMadox,  I,  474,  n.  a. 
"  Rot.  Litt.  Claus.,  I,  85a. 
12  Ibid.,  I,  79a,  80b. 
is  Rot.  Litt.  Pat.,  pp.  71b,  72a. 
i*  Rot.  Litt.  Claus.,  I,  81b;  Wav.,  p.  258. 

88 


UNDER  JOHN  AND  HENRY  III 

extorted  from  tenants  who  did  not  hold  by  lay  tenure 
and  hence  were  not  liable  for  the  thirteenth ;  for  by  reason 
of  this  fine,  the  king,  in  some  cases  at  least,  granted  to 
the  tenants  of  each  prelate  exemption  from  assessment 
by  the  county  officials.15  These  fines  were  round  sums 
which  did  not  bear  any  direct  relation  to  the  value  of 
the  property.  The  bishop  of  Bath  paid  700  marks;16 
the  prior  and  monks  of  Canterbury  1,000  marks;17  the 
abbot  of  Abingdon  600  marks;18  the  prior  of  Dunstable 
111  marks.19  Perhaps  the  churchmen  as  a  rule  made 
their  contribution  in  this  way.  An  entry  in  the  Fine  Rolls 
favors  such  a  conclusion  for  it  summarizes  the  returns 
under  the  headings,  the  common  thirteenth,  the  fines  of 
religious  men,  and  the  dona  of  bishops.20  The  prelate 
could  recoup  himself,  in  part  at  least,  by  levying  an  aid 
on  his  tenants  with  the  king's  permission.21  A  single 
reference  shows  that  the  towns,  that  is,  the  royal  demesne, 
were  assessed  for  the  thirteenth:  the  king  ordered  the 
bailiffs  of  Bristol  not  to  prevent  the  departure  of  the 
merchants  of  Breteuil  on  account  of  this  tax.22  Hence 
we  may  conclude  that  other  towns  as  well  were  paying  it. 
The  assessment  was  made  by  special  justices  sent  into 
each  county.  The  number  seems  to  have  been  large;  in 
Lincolnshire  there  were  fourteen.23  They  were  divided 

is  "pro  habenda  quietancia  de  dominicis,  feodis,  hominibus,  et 
omnibus  tenentibus  suis  .  .  .  de  auxilio"  (Rot.  Litt.  Glaus.,  I,  84b, 
79a). 

wRot.  Obi,  p.  413. 

if  Ibid. 

is  Rot.  Lift.  Glaus.,  I,  84b. 

is  Dunst.,  p.  29. 

20  Rot.  Obi,  p.  459. 

2iJRoi.  Litt.  Claus.,  I,  84b,  the  abbot  of  Abingdon;  "Philippus 
episcopus  Dunelmensis  r  c  de  M  libris,  pro  habenda  benevolentia 
regis  .  .  .  et  pro  habendo  ausilio  de  terris  suis  quod  modo  assisura 
est,  scilicet  de  marca  xii  d"  (Madox,  I,  408,  n.  «.). 

22  Rot.  Litt.  Claus.,  I,  81a. 

23Gerv.  Cant.,  II,  lix. 


STUDIES  IN  TAXATION 

into  groups,  each  taking  a  different  part  of  the  county, 
in  order  to  conclude  the  work  more  quickly.  They  were 
to  assess  each  vill  by  itself.  Probably  the  sheriff  sum- 
moned all  the  men  of  the  vill  to  meet  the  justices.  The 
bailiffs  of  the  earls  and  barons  holding  property  in  the 
vill  swore  to  the  value  of  their  lords'  revenues  and  move- 
ables  as  well  as  that  of  their  own.  The  other  men  of 
the  vill  made  oath  in  person.  A  roll  was  drawn  up  in 
duplicate.  One  copy  was  given  to  the  sheriff;  the  other 
was  retained  by  the  assessors  for  delivery  at  the  ex- 
chequer. The  officials  took  oath  to  perform  their  duties 
faithfully24  and  attempts  to  defraud  by  false  swearing  or 
by  concealment  of  goods  were  punishable  by  imprisonment 
and  confiscation  of  chattels.  The  assessment  was  made 
quickly ;  in  May  much  of  it  was  completed,  for  on  May  25, 
the  king  sent  a  new  set  of  justices  to  Warwickshire  to 
correct  mistakes  of  the  first  assessment.25  As  soon  as 
the  assessment  of  a  vill  was  completed,  the  roll  was 
delivered  to  the  sheriff  and  he  began  the  collection.  It 
was  to  be  paid  within  two  weeks,26  but  in  fact  it  took  the 
whole  summer  to  finish  the  work.27  The  punishments 
threatened  in  the  writ  were  carried  out.  Men  were  fined, 
disseized,  and  imprisoned  for  false  swearing  and  for 
refusal  to  swear  to  the  value  of  their  property.  William 
and  Gerard  de  Lancaster  were  thrown  into  the  Fleet 

2*  Rot.  Litt.  Pat.,  p.  72;  Select  Charters,  p.  283. 

25  Ibid. 

26  "Liberentur  (rotuli)  vicecomiti  colligendum  per  terminum  quin- 
denae  in  quindenam  cum  omni  festinatione." 

27  Liebermann,   p.    184:    "et    incepit   haec   collecta    a    Purificatione 
beatae   Marias   et   duravit   usque   ad    festum   S.   Michaelis"    (Ann.    de 
Bermundeseia,  p.  450).    A  collector  might  keep  the  money  for  a  long 
time.     In  1212,  the  sheriff  of  Hertfordshire  was  ordered  to  produce 
Thomas  de  Wylie  before  the  exchequer  "ad  ostendendum  quare  non 
pacavit  nobis  ducentas  marcas  de  lacto  tredecime"  (Rot.  Litt.  Claus., 
I,  117a). 

90 


UNDER  JOHN  AND  HENRY  III 

prison  for  the  thirteenth;28  Roaldo  Fitz  Alan  was  dis- 
seized of  Richmond  castle  for  refusal  to  swear.29  Some 
men  in  Lincolnshire  sought  to  escape  assessment  by 
depositing  their  property  with  religious  houses  and  the 
king  threatened  to  seize  the  property  of  the  houses  if 
they  did  not  surrender  it.30  The  amount  raised  was  over 
£60,000. 31  Such  a  sum  was  striking  testimony  to  the 
inefficiency  of  the  scutage  as  a  tax,  which  in  1206 
amounted  only  to  about  4,000  marks.32 

This  tax  is  a  step  in  the  transition  from  feudal  to 
national  taxation,  and  certain  features  of  it  are  deserving 
of  attention.  It  was  levied  not  as  one  of  the  three  aids, 
or  in  connection  with  a  campaign  just  completed,  as  the 
composition  for  service,  or  one  in  progress,  or  about  to 
be  begun.  Its  purpose  was  to  carry  on  a  war  to  be  under- 
taken at  some  undetermined  time  in  the  future;  this 
principle,  if  established,  would  give  the  king  an  almost 
unrestricted  right  of  taxation.  It  was  levied  on  property. 
It  was  national  in  scope,  all  classes  (except  perhaps  the 
beneficed  clergy  and  some  religious  orders)  being  subject 
to  the  same  levy.  The  method  of  assessment  and  collec- 
tion was  national,  not  feudal.  The  territorial  unit  of 
the  levy  was  the  vill,  a  national  unit,  and  not  the  feudal 
holding;  the  work  was  done  by  royal  officials,  not  the 

28  Rot.  Litt.  Pat.,  p.  73a. 

™  Ibid.;  Rot.  Obi.,  p.  372;  see  also  the  cases  of  William  Frankelein 
(ibid.,  p.  374)  and  Philip  de  Valoines  (Rot.  Litt.  Claus.,  I,  85a). 

so  Rot.  Litt.  Pat.,  p.  71a. 

si  "Recepta  totius  tredecime  tarn  de  communi  quam  de  finibus 
religiosorum  et  de  donis  episcoporum  quinquaginta  et  septem  inillia 
CCCC  xxi  li.  xi  s  v  d.  Summa  debiti  totius  tredecime,  duo  millia 
sexcent'  xv  li.  v  sol.  x  den.  excepto  debito  vicecomitis  Sussex'  et  vice- 
comitis  Cumberland'  qui  nondum  computaverunt  et  exceptis  aliis 
quibusdam  que  vobis  plenius  dicemus  cum  ad  vos  veniemus"  (Rot. 
Obi,  p.  459). 

32  See  above,  p.  78.  Cf.  also  the  amounts  realized  by  aids  levied  on 
the  knight's  fee,  below,  pp.  126,  243,  257. 

91 


STUDIES  IN  TAXATION 

feudal  tenants.  Another  fact  worth  noticing  is  that 
there  was  no  use  of  local  machinery  in  the  work  of  assess- 
ment; each  man  assessed  himself  in  the  presence  of  the 
justices. 


92 


CHAPTER  IV 

THE  TAXES  IN  DETAIL  FROM  1208  TO  1216 

DURING  the  next  few  years,  much  of  the  property 
of  the  church  was  in  hand  and  the  king  derived 
considerable  income  from  it;  there  were  also  exactions 
from  religious  orders.  While  these  returns  increased  the 
royal  revenue,  they  had  little  or  no  result  in  developing 
a  system  of  taxation.  The  regular  levies  of  the  period 
consisted  of  four  scutages  and  two  tallages.1  The  scutages 
differed  on  the  whole  from  those  of  the  earlier  part  of  the 
reign.  Only  one,  the  scutage  of  Scotland,  could  be  legally 
questioned;  the  others  were  fully  justified  by  the  law. 
But  there  is  evidence  that  the  barons  were  beginning  to 
criticise  the  occasions  on  which  the  king  took  scutage, 
and  in  1214,  as  is  well  known,  the  northern  barons  refused 
to  pay  the  scutage  of  Poitou  on  the  ground  that  they 
did  not  owe  service  in  France.  Only  one  of  the  scutages, 
that  of  Ireland,  was  generally  accompanied  by  fines,  which, 
as  it  happened,  were  the  highest  that  had  ever  been  levied. 
In  the  scutage  of  Scotland,  some  tenants  paid  scutage  at 
a  rate  higher  than  the  prevailing  rate  of  the  year,  so  that 
in  effect  they  paid  fines.  It  is  also  to  be  noticed  that  the 
rate  of  scutage  in  two  cases,  those  of  Ireland  and  Poitou, 
was  three  marks  per  fee,  the  highest  ever  reached  in  the 
history  of  the  tax.  In  every  case  the  scutages  were  taken 
only  from  those  tenants  who  had  failed  to  perform  their 

i  In  1211,  there  were  some  fines  levied  on  the  fees  of  Robert  Fitz 
Walter,  Eustace  de  Vescy,  and  the  bishops  who  were  in  exile  (Dunst,, 
p.  35). 

93 


STUDIES  IN  TAXATION 

service,  though  some  of  the  tenants  served  with  only  part 
of  their  contingents. 

The  tallage,  it  will  be  noticed,  was  levied  only  once  in 
connection  with  a  scutage,  viz.,  in  1210,  and  then  it 
resembled  the  scutage  of  Ireland  of  the  same  year  in  the 
enormous  amounts  paid.  The  total  tallage  charged  would 
approach  15,000  marks,  an  unprecedented  sum.  The 
only  other  tallage  of  this  period  was  taken  in  1214,  but 
it  had  no  connection  with  the  scutage  of  that  year.  It 
was  taken  to  raise  money  to  pay  the  indemnity  for  the 
interdict.  The  king  does  not  seem  to  have  lacked  money 
during  this  period,  a  condition  due  in  part  to  the 
additions  to  his  income  from  the  church  lands. 

THE  SCUTAGE  OF  SCOTLAND 

In  June  or  July,  1209,  John  summoned  the  host  against 
the  king  of  Scots  to  enforce  security  for  his  loyalty.  He 
marched  north  as  far  as  Norham  where,  without  any 
fighting,  a  treaty  was  made  on  August  7.2  In  connection 
with  this  expedition,  a  scutage  at  twenty  shillings  was 
levied.  Some  accounts  of  it  appear  in  the  rolls  of  1209 
and  1210,  but  most  of  the  counties  reported  in  1211 
(13  John).3 

»  Norgate,  John  Lackland,  p.  133;  Gerv.  Cant.,  II,  203.  One  of  the 
terms  of  the  treaty  was  that  King  William  was  to  pay  John  15,000 
marks  (Rymer,  I,  103);  £13,000  (Chronicon  de  Lanercost,  ed.  Steven- 
son, Bannatyne  Club,  p.  7) ;  12,000  marks  (Wend.,  Ill,  226) ;  11,000 
marks  (Matthew  Paris,  II,  525).  Part  of  this  sum  had  been  paid 
in  1211:  "et  in  cariagio  vii  milia  marcarum  de  fine  regis  Scottorum 
a  Norham  usque  ad  Notingeham"  (Pipe  Roll,  13  John,  m.  4  d). 

*  Devon  and  Cumberland  account  in  full  and  Dorset  and  Somerset, 
Bucks  and  Bedford  in  part  in  1209;  in  1210,  there  are  returns  for 
Sussex,  Berks,  and  part  of  Essex  and  Hertford.  No  full  returns 
appear  in  any  year  for  Dorset  and  Somerset,  Kent,  Stafford,  Salop, 
or  Wigorn. 

94 


The  account  follows : 

M  s  d 

Fines4              .          .  .  873  8  8  on  240  fees 

Scutage  at  20s         .  .  1303  10  9  on  869  fees 

Additional5                .  .  800 

Total6              .          .  .  2185  6  1 
Fees  taxed,  about,  1110 

Paid,  13  John           .  .  769  11  8 

Practically  all  the  tenants  holding  five  fees  or  more 
received  writs  of  quittance,  probably  because  of  service 
with  the  host.  Stephen  de  Hamton  was  charged  with 
twenty  shillings  on  one  fee.  He  was  quit  because  he  sent 
his  son  in  his  stead.7  There  is  no  account  of  the  scutages 
of  Lancashire  or  Hereford  because  all  the  knights  of 
those  counties  were  in  the  host.8  Thus  John  did  not  allow 
the  military  service  to  be  commuted  into  money  at  the  will 
of  the  tenants.  One  very  important  tenant  fined:  the  earl 
of  Albemarle.9  He  paid  132m  on  33  fees,  or  4m  per  fee, 

4  Some  tenants  pay  at  rates  different  from  the  prevailing  one  of 
20s.     In  Devon,  several  pay  sums  "de  scutagio  Scociae"  which  equal 
3m  per  fee:  knights  of  the  honors  of  Oliver  de  Tracy,  72m  on  24 
fees;  Hawise  de  Courtney,  £185  11s  8d  on  92  -f  fees;  abbey  of  Tavi- 
stock,  £32  on  16  fees;  tenants  of  the  honor  of  Berdestaple,  84m  on 
28  fees.     Part  of  one  honor   (Toteness)  pays  at  2m  per  fee  (Pipe 
Roll,  11  John,  m.  8,  13).     The  earl  of  Albemarle  paid  132m  on  33 
fees  "scilicet  iiii  marc,  de  scuto"   (ibid.,  13  John,  m.  1,  4).     These 
have  been  added  as  fines. 

5  Number  of  fees  unknown. 

«  The  bulk  of  this  levy  falls  on  honors  in  hand:  at  least,  1,219m  3s  4d 
on  731  fees  are  of  this  description.  Of  the  remainder,  966m  2s  9d, 
over  a  fourth,  fell  on  one  holding,  the  honor  of  Okehampton,  held 
by  Hawise  de  Courtney,  278m  5s  on  92  -j-  fees. 

7  "Sed  non  debet  summoneri  quia  misit  filium  suum  in  exercitum" 
(Pipe  Roll,  13  John,  Oxf.,  m.  21  d). 

s  Farrer,  Lane.  Pipe  Roll,  p.  241 ;  Pipe  Roll,  13  John,  Heref.,  m. 
7  d;  likewise  for  the  archbishopric  of  Canterbury,  m.  5  d;  for  Brian 
de  L'Isle,  m.  2  d;  for  Robert  de  Vieux-Pont,  m.  4. 

» Other  lay  tenants  who  held  more  than  five  fees  and  were  not 
exempt  were:  Baldwin  Wak  and  Cecilia  de  Crevequor  in  Lincoln- 
shire; William  de  Windsor  in  Bucks  and  Bedford;  Robert  de  Turn- 

95 


STUDIES  IN  TAXATION 

though  the  rate  of  scutage  was  20s.10  The  tenant  who 
failed  to  perform  his  service  did  not  always  escape  with 
the  payment  of  scutage  or  a  moderate  fine.  Duncan  de 
Lascels  was  disseized  of  3%  fees,  because  he  was  not  in 
the  army  of  Scotland  and  he  had  to  pay  a  fine  of  65m  to 
recover  his  land.11  The  abbot  of  Michelney  had  to  pay 
100m  because  he  neither  came  himself  nor  sent  his  ser- 
vice.12 The  exchequer  might  deal  directly  with  the  rear- 
vassal.  When  the  tenant  in  chief  was  charged  with 
scutage,  the  amount  due  from  the  sub-tenant  might  be 
pardoned.13  This  also  shows  that  the  scutage  fell  back 
on  the  rear-vassal. 

THE  SCUTAGE  OF  IRELAND  (1210) 

The  expedition  to  Ireland  set  sail  on  June  6,  1210,  and 
was  back  again  in  England  on  August  29.  The  campaign 
lasted  therefore  about  eighty  days.14  According  to  the 
chroniclers  the  army  was  large,15  being  composed  of 
knights  and  sergeants  holding  by  military  service  and  of 
mercenaries  as  well.16  Those  who  responded  to  the  sum- 
mons to  the  array  usually  did  not  furnish  the  whole 

ham  in  York;  and  Roger  de  Berkeley  in  Gloucestershire.  Some  of 
these  may  have  been  in  hand. 

10  Pipe  Roll,  13  John,  Norf.  and  Suff.,  Bucks  and  Bedf.  and  York, 
m.  1,  4,  21. 

u  Pipe  Roll,  12  John,  m.  2. 

12  Ibid.,  11  John,  m.  9  d. 

13  The  earl  of  Albemarle  owed  132m  of  fine  in  Yorkshire;  he  paid 
so  much  "et  in  perdonis  Ricardo  de  Argent'  iii  marc,  per  breve  regis" 
(Pipe  Roll,  13  John,  m.  4);  the  sheriff  accounted  for  £13  of  the 
scutage    of   Cecilia    de    Crevequor,    paid    so    much    "et   in    perdonis 
Alexandra  de  Nevilla  Ixx  sol.  per  breve  regis"   (ibid.,  14  John,  m. 
12  d). 

n  Wend.,  Ill,  233,  234. 

i5"collecto  multo  exercitu"  (Wav.,  p.  265);  "copioso  exercitu 
congregate"  (Wend.,  above). 

is "Praestitum  factum  militibus  Flandren'"  (Rot.  Lib.,  pp.  174, 
195,  210,  224). 

96 


UNDER  JOHN  AND  HENRY  III 

number  of  knights  due  from  them,  nor  was  it  expected 
apparently  that  they  should.  The  abbot  of  Pershore 
owed  the  service  of  two  knights  and  one  was  summoned; 
the  abbot  of  Evesham  owed  the  service  of  four  and  a  half 
knights  and  two  were  summoned.17  Gilbert  Peke  held 
19  +  fees  and  sent  two  knights.18  The  Prasstita  Roll  of 
this  year  contains  long  lists  of  sums  loaned  by  the  king 
to  the  members  of  his  force  and  in  several  cases  enters  the 
number  of  knights  for  whose  use  the  money  was  advanced. 
This  number  probably  represents  the  knights  present  with 
the  tenant  in  chief.  As  a  rule  it  was  much  smaller  than 
either  the  servitium  debitum  or  the  number  for  which  the 
tenant  in  chief  usually  responded  for  scutage.  The 
following  are  some  examples : 

Knights       Fees 
present       held19 

Earl  Warenne          ...      8  60 

Robert  de  Tateshall          .          .3  25 

William  Malet          .          .          .5  21  + 

Earl  Albericus          .          .  .6  30% 

Bishop  of  Salisbury  9  32 

Ralph  Sudley  ...      2  3 

Robert  de  Mara       ...      2  4 

Robert  de  Turnham          .  .3  31  + 

Henry  de  Oilly        .          .          .2  32% 

Geoffrey  Fitz  Peter          .          .10  98% 

Earl  of  Hereford   .          .          .10  30% 

Countess  of  Clare   .          .          .2  9  + 

Nigel  de  Luvetot    .          .          .2  15 

Robert  Marmion      ...      3  25 

Gilbert  Gaunt          .          .  .6  68% 

Gilbert  Peke  .          .          .      220  19  + 

"  Pipe  Roll,  12  John,  Wigorn.,  m.  15  d. 
is  Ibid.,  Norf.  and  Suff.,  m.  4. 

is  In  this  list  the  numbers  are  either  the  servitium  debitum  or  the 
number  of  fees  for  which  the  tenants  in  chief  usually  respond. 

20  This  is  the  number  of  knights  that  we  know  Gilbert  sent;  see 

97 


STUDIES  IN  TAXATION 

In  connection  with  this  campaign  there  were  collected 
a  scutage,  fines,  and  a  tallage. 

The  roll  is  incomplete.  Most  of  the  tenants  do  not 
appear  at  all.  In  only  one  bailiwick  (Norfolk  and 
Suffolk)  is  a  list  of  writs  of  quittance  given.  For  York- 
shire and  Northumberland  it  is  stated  that  only  part  of 
the  account  was  rendered  at  the  exchequer.  For  Salop 
no  return  was  made.  Many  names  appear  which  cannot 
be  identified  and  which  never  appear  again.  The  following 
is  the  account: 

M  s     d         Fees 

Fines  ....        6,963  1     8         432 

Scutage          .          .          .          .  800  3     4         27 1%21 

Additional22  .          .          .        1,471  74 

Sergeants23    .          .          .          .  979  6     8 

Total  charged         .          .          .10,214  58 

Paid,  12  and  13  John       .          .        8,496  12     6 

According  to  the  Red  Boole,  the  rate  of  this  scutage 
was  two  marks,24  but  most  of  the  tenants  who  accounted 
for  sums  de  scutagio  paid  at  the  rate  of  three  marks ;  for 
example,  the  honor  of  Eye  was  charged  with  270m  (90 
fees)  ;25  that  of  Walter  de  Lacy26  and  of  Hawise  de 

note  18.     For  the  number  of  knights  present  as  given  in  this  list, 
see  Rot.  Lib.,  pp.  177,  189,  193,  207,  216,  219,  221,  222,  225,  226. 

21 256}£  fees  pay  at  3m  per  fee.  Ralph  Basset  pays  30m  "pro 
concelamento  servitii  sui  et  pro  fine  passagii"  (Pipe  Roll,  12  John, 
Notts,  and  Derby,  m.  12).  He  held  15  fees.  I  have  included  this 
amount  as  a  scutage  at  2m. 

22  Number  of  fees  unknown. 

23  Of  this  sum,  494i/£m  are  charged  in  Cumberland  on  sergeants, 
drengs,  etc. 

z*  Red  Book,  I,  12. 

25  £180,  "de  scutagio  militum  honoris  de  Eia,  scilicet  de  quater 
xx  et  x  feodis"  (Pipe  Roll,  12  John,  Norf.  and  Suff.,  m.  4).  Usually, 

fees. 
2e  Ibid.,  Heref.,  m.  13  d. 

98 


UNDER  JOHN  AND  HENRY  III 

Courtney27  at  three  marks.  On  the  average  the  fines 
exceeded  anything  imposed  before.  Though  the  number 
of  fees  recorded  in  the  roll  is  small,  yet,  as  both  great  and 
small  holdings  are  included,  the  sums  demanded  may 
fairly  be  regarded  as  typical.  The  abbey  of  Ramsey 
(in  hand)  paid  258m  6s  4d;  the  abbey  of  Peterborough 
(in  hand,  60  fees)  paid  364m  5s  4d;28  the  bishopric  of 
Durham  (in  hand,  10  fees)  paid  2,279m  3s  4d.29  Aside 
from  these  three  holdings,  about  360  fees  paid  about 
4,000  marks  of  fines,  or  at  the  rate  of  over  10  marks  per 
fee. 

Some  greater  lay  tenants  who  fined  were:  the  earl  of 
Clare,  500m  on  140  +  fees  ;so  Henry  Luvel,  330m  on  18 
fees;31  Hubert  Fitz  Ralph,  210m  on  15  fees.32  These 
fines  are  heavy.  Some  tenants  in  chief  sent  knights  in 
their  stead,  but  had  to  fine  for  the  privilege.33  Cases  of 
disseizin  occur  for  failure  to  answer  the  summons,  either 
by  sending  the  quota  of  knights  demanded  or  by  making 


27  She  accounts   for   £185   10s   "de  scutagio  Yberniae  de  scutagio 
quater  xx  et  xii  militibus  et  tribus  partibus  unius  militis  .  .  .  scilicet 
de  quolibet  feodo  iii  marc."  (ibid.,  Devon,  m.  15).    The  custodian  of 
the  abbey  of  Abbotsbury  in  his  account  has  the  item  "et  de  xl  sol. 
de  scutagio  feodi  i  militis  de  scutagio  Yberniae"    (ibid.,  m.   1).     It 
seems  probable  that  the  rate  of  this  scutage  was  3m.    However  part 
of  the  fee  of  William  de  Braose,  in  hand,  paid  scutage  at  4m  per 
fee  (ibid.,  m.  6  d),  which  has  been  added  as  a  fine. 

28  Pipe  Roll,  12  John,  m.  19. 

29  Ibid.,  13  John,  m.  4  d. 

ao  Ibid.,  12  John,  Norf.  and  Suff.,  m.  4. 

si  Ibid.,  Dors,  and  Somers.,  m.  6;  300m  and  3  "optimos"  palfreys. 

Mlbid.,  Notts,  and  Derby,  m.  12;  200m  and  2  palfreys. 

33  Gilbert  Peke  paid  40m  to  send  2  knights  pro  se  (ibid.,  Norf. 
and  Suff.);  Hugh  de  Bolebec  30m  to  send  2  knights  pro  se  (5  fees) 
(ibid.,  Northumb.,  m.  10  d)  ;  Ralph  de  Trihamton  1  palfrey  to  send 
his  uncle  pro  se  (ibid.,  Line.,  m.  2)  ;  Walter  de  Ver  one  good  palfrey 
to  send  1  knight  pro  se  (ibid.)  ;  he  held  of  the  bishopric  of  Lincoln 
which  was  in  hand. 

99 


STUDIES  IN  TAXATION 

a  satisfactory  fine.34  The  king  could  not  at  will  collect 
scutage  or  fine  from  those  who  were  not  tenants  in  chief. 
The  law  protected  them.  Hugh  de  Canvill  was  summoned 
to  cross  with  the  king.  He  protested  and  paid  thirty 
marks  for  an  inquest  to  determine  whether  or  not  his 
two  and  one-fourth  fees  were  held  of  the  king.35  The 
inference  is  that  if  he  were  not  an  immediate  vassal,  he 
was  not  liable  to  the  king  for  anything  in  connection  with 
this  expedition.  The  tallage  was  levied  on  cities,  towns, 
and  the  king's  manors,36  and  lands  in  hand.  The  greater 
part  accounted  for  fell  on  towns  and  cities,  all  of  which 
compounded  and  determined  the  incidence  themselves. 
Sometimes  the  towns  paid  the  tallage  into  the  exchequer 
and  sometimes  to  the  sheriff.37  Sums  were  also  charged 
against  persons,  probably  of  the  king's  manors,  which 
were  collected  by  the  sheriff.88  The  total  amount  entered 
in  the  roll,  not  including  lands  in  hand,  was  12,416m  Is 


3*  Albreda  de  Lincoln  "quia  non  habuit  1  militem  in  servitio  regis" 
(ibid.,  Dors,  and  Somers.,  m.  7) ;  Malgerus  le  Vavasour  "eo  quod 
non  transfretavit  .  .  .  nee  finem  fecit  pro  passagio  suo"  (ibid.,  York, 
m.  19  d) ;  Matthew  de  Clivedon  "eo  quod  non  transfretavit  .  .  .  quia 
finis  x  marcarum  non  fuit  sufficiens  (ibid.,  Heref.,  m.  9  d) ;  Geoffrey 
de  Mandeville  50m  and  1  palfrey  "pro  habenda  saisina  terrae  suae 
unde  fuit  dissaisitus  eo  quod  non  ivit  cum  rege  in  Yberniam  (ibid., 
14  John,  Wilts,  m.  16) ;  Roger  de  Cramavill,  Elias  Ginant  (Madox, 
I,  491,  n.  d,  663,  n.  x). 

35  "pro  habenda  inquisitione  an  teneat  de  rege  feoda  ii  militum  et  i 
quartern,  unde  summonitus  fuit  ad  transfretandum"   (Pipe  Roll,  12 
John,  War.  and  Leic.,  m.  9). 

36  "taillagia    maneriorum" ;    "compotus    non    redditur    hie  .  .  .  de 
taillagiis  hominum  vel  maneriorum"    (ibid.,  Cornw.,   Northumb.,  m. 
7,  10  d). 

37  "Homines  de  Bristou  r  c  de  mille  marcis  de  eodem ;  in  thesauro 
D  marc,  et  Engelardo  de  Cigoni  D  marc,  ad  ponendum  in  thesauro 
regis  per  breve  regis  et  quieti  sunt"   (Pipe  Roll,  12  John,  m.  13). 
Usually  the  sheriff  accounts  for  the  tallage  at  the  exchequer. 

38  The  sheriff  accounts  for  42i£m  of  the  tallage  "hominum  quorum 
nomina  annotantur  in  originali"  (Pipe  Roll,  12  John,  Wilts,  m.  8). 

100 


UNDER  JOHN  AND  HENRY  III 

and  it  was  nearly  all  paid  in  1210.39  The  account  given 
is  incomplete.  Both  the  sums  levied  on  individual  towns 
and  the  sum  total  show  a  marked  increase  in  the  tallage 
this  year. 


THE  SCUTAGE  OF  WALES,  1211 

John  made  two  expeditions  against  the  Welsh  in  1211, 
one  in  May  and  one  in  July.  The  first  failed  through  lack 
of  supplies,  but  the  second  with  a  larger  army  and  abun- 
dance of  provisions  was  successful.40  The  full  quota  of 
knights  either  did  not  respond  to  the  first  summons  or 
was  not  summoned,  and  there  is  one  case  which  suggests 
that  individual  tenants  did  not  furnish  their  full  con- 
tingents.41 The  second  campaign  lasted  about  forty  days, 
from  July  8  till  August  15.  At  the  close,  a  scutage  was 
taken  from  those  who  had  not  taken  part.42  A  few  tenants 
paid  fines. 


39  This  includes  30  counties.     London  is  entered  in  1211:  "Gives 
London'  r  c  de  MM  marc,  de  dono"  (Pipe  Roll,  13  John,  m.  9  d). 
The  tallage  of  the  following  counties  is  not  entered  in  the  Pipe  Roll: 
York,  Kent,  Sussex,  Salop,  Stafford,  and  Lancashire.     Only  a  small 
part  of  the  levy  in  Northumberland  and  Lincolnshire  is  recorded.    A 
complete  account  of  this  levy  would  probably  bring  it  up  to  15,000 
marks,  though  this  figure  would  not  include  tallages  levied  on  lands 
in  hand. 

40  Ann.  Camb.,  pp.  67,  68;  Cov.,  II,  203;  Wend.,  Ill,  235;  Norgate, 
John  Lackland,  p.   158;   Liebermann,   Ungedr.  Anglo-Norm.  Oesch.- 
Quellen,  Annales  8.  Albani,  p.  169. 

41  Robert  de  Mandevill  was  charged  with  29^m  of  scutage.     He 
was  first  pardoned  8m  by  the  king  for  some  reason  which  is  not 
stated.     He  was  later  pardoned  the  balance  because  he  sent  knights 
to  Poitou   (Pipe  Roll,  13  John,  Dors,  and  Somers.,  m.  7  d).     May 
not  the  first  sum  pardoned  refer  to  the  service  of  4  knights  in  Wales? 

42  Wend.,  Ill,  236;  Liebermann,  Ann.  S.  Edm.,  p.  150:  "de  scutagio 
militum  qui  non  fuerunt  in  exercitu  Walliae"   (Pipe  Roll,   13  John, 
York,  m.  4  d). 

101 


STUDIES  IN  TAXATION 

The  account  of  the  scutage  follows : 

M  s  d 

Clerical  tenants43 1,714  2  9 

Seventy-two    lay    tenants    (each    5    or    more 

fees)4* 3,741  6  10 

Other  lay  tenants    (each   fewer  than   5   fees, 

etc.)45 1,091  1  10 

Total 6,546  11  5 

Fines46              .          .          .          .          .                   277  12  10 

Total47 6,824  10  11 

Paid,  13  and  14  John  .  .  .  3,774  10  2 
Fees  taxed,  over  3300. 

Thus  the  levy  was  charged  against  about  half  of  the  fees 
of  England.  Nearly  all  the  churchmen  were  taxed.  The 
number  of  lay  tenants  holding  five  fees  or  more  who 
contributed,  seventy-two  in  number,  is  noteworthy.  The 
list  includes  the  earl  of  Hereford,  30%  fees;  Henry  de 
Oilli,  32  +  fees ;  the  earl  of  Albemarle,  33  fees ;  Alfred 


43  This  entry  includes  charges  of  436m  6s  5d  against  the  new 
enfeoffment  of  church  lands  in  hand. 

**  Some  of  these  are  in  hand:  Peverel,  127m;  Robert  de  Tateshal, 
50m;  Chokes,  30m;  Honor  of  Gloucester,  654m  4s;  honor  of  Thomas 
of  St.  Valery  accounts  for  86m  8s;  the  rape  of  Hastings  accounts 
for  104m. 

*5  About  885m  were  on  honors  in  hand:  Lancaster,  40m;  honor  of 
the  count  of  Perche,  214m  6s  lOd  (Pipe  Roll,  14  John,  m.  1);  of  the 
constable  of  Chester,  231m  3s  4d  (ibid.) ;  of  the  honor  of  Brecknock, 
etc.,  of  William  de  Braose,  109m  5s  8d  (ibid.,  m.  17);  part  of  the 
honor  of  Angrie,  52m  5s;  half  of  the  old  enfeoffment  and  all  the  new 
enfeoffment  of  Totness,  91m  15s;  part  of  Wallingford,  114m; 
Knaresburgh,  34m  6d.  This  leaves  about  200m  on  tenants  in  chief 
holding  fewer  than  5  fees  each. 

«  The  abbey  of  Ramsey  paid  100m  on  4  fees  (Pipe  Roll,  13  John, 
Cant,  and  Hunt.,  m.  8) ;  the  men  in  note  59  may  be  military 
tenants.  177m  12s  lOd  are  charged  against  88^-f-  fees  of  the  honor 
of  Mortain;  this  is  a  fine,  for  these  fees  paid  at  %  the  ordinary  rate. 

*7  At  least  1,100m  of  this  sum  were  pardoned. 

102 


UNDER  JOHN  AND  HENRY  III 

of  Lincoln,  25  +  fees  ;48  Robert  de  Cardinan  ;49  the  earl 
of  Devon,  89  fees.50 

This  scutage  was  in  general  a  commutation  for  service. 
Tenants  who  performed  their  service  paid  no  scutage  on 
any  of  their  fees,51  but  those  who  were  liable  for  scutage 
might  pay  on  their  fees  in  the  different  counties  where 
their  lands  lay.  Sometimes  the  sheriff  collected  from  the 
rear-vassals,52  though  it  may  be  doubted  whether  this 
was  ordinarily  done.  The  charge  in  the  roll  was  regularly 
made  against  the  tenant  in  chief,  not  against  the  sub- 
tenant. If  for  any  reason  part  of  the  fee  changed  hands 
temporarily,  the  debit  was  changed  accordingly.  Had 

<s  Pipe  Roll,  13  John,  Wilts,  m.  12;  Oxf.,  m.  21  d;  York,  m.  4; 
Dors,  and  Somers.,  m.  7  d. 

49  Ibid.,  Corn.,  m.  15  d.  71  fees  of  Mortain  paying  at  %  the  regular 
rate. 

so  Ibid.,  Devon,  m.  10  d.  The  only  account  of  the  reign  of  John 
before  this  year  which  seems  to  give  a  complete  statement  of  the  earl's 
fees,  states  that  he  holds  15  fees  "quos  recognoscit"  and  45  fees  "quos 
non  recognoscit"  (Rot.  Cane.,  3  John,  p.  26;  see  also  the  scutage  of 
1195,  Red  Book,  I,  88,  for  the  same  statement).  Round  says  that  the 
earl's  servitium  debitum  under  Henry  II  was  15  fees  as  "the  scutages 
record  him  as  paying  always  on  15  knights,  quos  recognoscit — the 
formula  for  servitium  debitum"  (Feudal  England,  p.  255).  From 
1211  on,  this  holding  always  paid  on  89  fees,  but  the  figure  does  not 
represent  a  new  assessment  as  the  Red  Book  states  that  in  1167  Earl 
Reginald  of  Cornwall  held  89  fees  which  belong  to  the  earl  of  Devon 
(Red  Book,  I,  43). 

si  Thus  a  tenant  was  acquitted  in  more  than  one  county:  the  earl 
of  Arundel  in  Kent,  Sussex,  Norf.,  and  Suff.  If  the  writ  of  exemp- 
tion was  not  at  first  secured,  the  tenant  was  able  to  prevent  the 
sheriff  from  collecting  scutage  from  himself  or  his  men.  This  is 
the  meaning  of  cases  where  tenants  are  entered  in  the  roll  as  owing 
scutage,  but  no  payment  has  been  made.  A  note  was  added  after 
the  roll  had  been  drawn  up:  "sed  postea  habuit  quietanciam  per 
breve"  (e.g.  Fulk  Fitz  Warren,  Robert  de  Berkeley,  William  Earl 
Marshal,  Pipe  Roll,  13  John,  m.  11  d,  12  d). 

52  Henry  de  Oilli  accounts  for  64m  8s  lid;  in  Oxford,  he  pays  in 
thesauro  24i/^m  2s  5d  "in  xii  talliis  in  quibus  nomina  militum  suorum 
annotantur  qui  denarios  reddiderunt"  and  4m  by  the  sheriff  of  Bucks 
and  Bedf.  (ibid.,  Oxf.,  m.  21  d)). 

103 


STUDIES  IN  TAXATION 

the  scutage  been  collected  from  the  rear-vassal  by  the 
sheriff,  such  bookkeeping  would  not  have  been  necessary.53 
Nevertheless,  the  scutage  was  shifted  to  the  rear-vassal. 
If  he  for  any  reason  were  unable  to  pay,  his  lord  would 
be  granted  a  delay;5*  scutage  on  land  in  hand  was  not 
demanded  of  the  tenant  in  chief,55  and  rear-vassals  were 
also  pardoned  their  scutage  by  the  king.56  Honors  in 
hand  paid  on  all  the  knights  enfeoffed.  Thus  the  bishopric 
of  Lincoln  paid  on  about  104  fees  instead  of  on  60;  the 
archbishopric  of  York,  on  about  43  fees  instead  of  on 
20 ;  the  bishopric  of  Exeter,  on  15/4  fees  quos  recognoscit 
and  about  23  fees  quos  non  recognoscit;  the  archbishopric 
of  Canterbury,  on  84%  fees  instead  of  on  60. 5T 

The  accounts  of  the  scutages  of  Scotland  and  Wales 
as  given  in  the  roll  of  13  John  were  evidently  made  out 
from  the  same  lists  of  names.  That  more  care  than 
hitherto  was  taken  in  drawing  up  these  accounts  is  shown 

53  The  heirs  of  Doun  Bardulf  account  for  50m  on  25  fees:  "in 
thesauro  xii  marc,  et  super  dominicum  quod  est  in  manu  regis" 
13m  4s  5d  on  6%  fees  "et  super  dominicum  quod  domina  habet  in 
dote"  6m  8s  lid  on  3%  fees  "et  in  perdonis  Huberto  de  Burgo  x 
marc,  de  v  feodis"  (ibid.,  Notts,  and  Derby,  m.  2  d) ;  see  below, 
note  55.  The  custodian  of  an  honor  in  hand  might  collect  from  the 
rear-vassals  and  in  that  case  he  was  doubtless  acting  as  did  the 
tenant  in  chief;  thus  Giun  de  Chancels  accounts  for  the  honor  of 
Gloucester  "per  manum  suam  colligat"  (m.  12  d). 

5*  Geoffrey  de  Chausir'  accounts  for  3m  on  1^  fees,  "in  thesauro 
xxx  sol.  et  debet  x  sol.  qui  sunt  super  terrain  Turstani  de  Claudon' 
qui  est  in  prisona"  (ibid.,  Berks,  m.  18). 

ss  The  earl  of  Hereford  accounts  for  61m,  pays  in  Wilts  so  much 
"et  per  manum  vicecomitis  de  Berkesira  i  marc."  .  .  .  "et  debet  x 
li.  de  quibus  vi  marc,  sunt  super  Milonem  de  S.  Mauro  pro  iii  feodis 
et  ii  marc,  super  Ricardum  de  Lukinton'  quorum  terrae  sunt  in  manu 
regis"  (ibid.,  Wilts,  m.  12) ;  for  Robert  de  Chandos,  debts  of  the  4th, 
5th  and  6th  scutages  (ibid.,  Heref.,  m.  7  d). 

56  E.g.  Richard  de  Argent'  (scutage  of  Scotland,  ibid.,  York,  m. 
4) ;  in  the  archbishopric  of  Canterbury,  in  hand  (m.  5  d) ;  honor 
of  Gloucester  (m.  17  d) ;  abbot  of  Peterborough  (m.  13);  Godfrey 
de  Craucumb,  holding  of  the  heirs  of  Walter  de  Cormeilles  (m.  7  d). 

5T  Pipe  Roll,  13  John,  m.  14  d,  10  d,  5  d. 

104 


UNDER  JOHN  AND  HENRY  III 

by  the  fact  that  the  number  of  fees  held  by  the  tenant 
was  always  stated  whether  he  paid  scutage  or  was 
acquitted.58  Such  a  statement  was  not  regularly  entered 
until  this  year,  though  the  practice  was  customary  after- 
ward. Some  fines  were  levied  on  the  royal  demesne  for 
the  expedition  to  Wales.59 

The  chroniclers  state  that  after  the  Irish  campaign, 
enormous  sums  were  levied  on  the  religious  houses ; 
according  to  one,  they  were  taxed  £100,000  of  which 
£40,000  were  levied  on  the  Cistercians  ;60  according  to 
another,  that  order  paid  £18,000  ;61  according  to  a  third, 
£22,200,62  but  no  such  sums  appear  in  the  Pipe  Roll. 
The  Jews  also  were  tallaged,  one  chronicler  stating  that 
they  were  charged  with  66,000  marks.63  According  to 
the  Pipe  Roll,  the  tallage  was  levied  on  the  Jews  on 
November  1,  1210,  but  the  total  amount  is  not  given. 

58  When  both  scutages  appear  in  the  roll,  the  Scottish  levy  pre- 
cedes that  of  Wales;  the  number  of  fees  in  the  latter  account  is  often 
omitted,  particularly  in  the  lists  of  writs  of  quittance.    This  omission 
is  due  to  the  fact  that  the  number  has  just  been  given  in  the  account 
of  the  other  levy.    The  reason  for  such  a  careful  account  is  probably 
that  the  clerks  made  use  of  the  information  obtained  from  the  inquest 
made  by  John  about  this  time  (Round,  Commune  of  London,  p.  261; 
Hall,  Preface,  Red  Book  of  the  Exchequer,  II,  ccxxii-ccxxviii,  for  the 
discussion   of   this   inquest).     The   entries    of   the   Scottish    scutage 
given  on  the  rolls  of  1209  and  1210  do  not  give  the  same  detailed 
information  (Pipe  Roll,  11  John,  m.  13  d;  12  John,  m.  2,  10). 

59  £110  "de  minutis  finibus  hominum  comitatuum  ut  remaneant  ab 
exercitu  Walliae"    (Pipe   Roll,   12  John,  War.   and  Leic.,  m.  9   d) ; 
Dunst.,  p.  32. 

eo  Wend.,  Ill,  235;  33,333  marks,  Liber  de  Antiquis  Legibus,  p.  201. 
«*  Morgan,  pp.  29-30;  £22,000  (Cogg.,  p.  164). 

62  Wav.,  p.  265;  for  other  notices  of  exactions  from  the  clergy,  see 
Cont.  Chron.  Will,  de  Novo  Burgo,  in  Chron.  of  Reigns  of  Stephen, 
Henry  II,  and  Richard  I,  II,  510,  512;  Gerv.  Cant.,  II,  105;  Hist,  et 
Cart.  Mon.  S.  Petri  Olouc.,  I,  24.;  Dunst.,  p.  32;  Wint.,  p.  81;  Theok., 
p.  59;  Cov.,  II,  201-202. 

63  Wav.,  p.  264;  Wend.,  Ill,  231;  Cov.,  II,  203;  Cont.  Flor.  Wig., 
ed.  Thorpe,  Engl.  Hist.  Soc.,  II,  169;  Dunst.,  p.  32;   Wint.,  p.  81; 
Gerv.  Cant.,  II,  105. 

105 


STUDIES  IN  TAXATION 

Isaac  of  Norwich  is  said  to  have  made  a  fine  of  5,100 
marks ;  John  Fitz  Hugh  accounted  in  1211  for  £2,159  11s 
of  the  tallage  of  the  Jews  which  had  been  actually  paid 
him.64 

From  1206  to  1212,  John's  income  was  considerably 
increased  by  the  profits  of  church  lands  in  hand.  The 
entries  given  below  amount  to  over  £50,000.  Some  of 
this  money  was  spent  for  the  upkeep  of  the  manors  of 
the  clergy,  donations,  etc.,  but  by  far  the  greater  part 
came  into  the  royal  exchequer  or  was  laid  out  for  the 
king's  benefit.65  As  this  account  is  not  exhaustive,  the 
total  amount  received  must  have  been  much  larger.  A 

6*  Pipe  Roll,  13  John,  m.  22.  Ramsay,  Angevin  Empire,  p.  426, 
thinks  that  this  Isaac  was  the  Jew  mentioned  by  Wendover  who 
was  to  lose  a  tooth  a  day  till  he  agreed  to  pay  10,000  marks,  but 
believes  that  the  amount  has  been  exaggerated  by  the  chronicler. 
In  this  case,  however,  Wendover  was  correct  as  far  as  the  amount 
goes.  In  1220,  Hubert  de  Burgh  accounted  for  £604  which  he  had 
received  from  Isaac  of  Norwich,  Jew,  "de  fine  unius  marcae  qualibet 
die  regi  reddendae  a  praedicto  Isaac  quamdiu  vixerit  donee  de  fine 
x  milium  marcarum  que  fecerat  cum  rege  Johanne  patre  regis  sit 
quietus"  (Rot.  Litt.  Claus.,  I,  459a;  Pipe  Roll,  4  Henry  III,  m. 
4  d).  If  this  Isaac  is  the  Jew  of  the  roll  of  1211,  he  had  his  fine 
reduced  to  5,100  marks  or  had  paid  previously  4,900  marks. 

«6  Some  accounts  were  rendered  in  camera  and  do  not  appear  in 
the  Pipe  Roll  (see  Pipe  Roll,  11  John,  Devon,  m.  8;  12  John,  m.  19). 

1206  £        s      d 

Archbishopric  of  Canterbury 5,169     19      5 

Abbey  of  Hide 375     15      5 

1207 

Bishopric  of  Lincoln  (part  of  8th  and  all  of  9th  year)  1,838  6  9 

Abbey  of  Ramsey,  one  year     .....  581  7  3 

Bishopric  of  Exeter,  one  year 655  8  10 

1208 

Bishopric  of  Durham  (fines) 2,666  13  4 

Chertsey,  three  years 264  5  9 

Ramsey,  one  year 508  0  1 

1209 
Abbey  of  Whitby,  three  years 414      1      9 

106 


UNDER  JOHN  AND  HENRY  III 


1210  £  s  d 

Abbey  of  Einesham,  one  year  .....  187  6  2 

Abbotsbury,  one  year       ......  152  19  3 

Holme,  one  and  one  half  years  .         .         .         .         .  361  2  8 

Bishopric  of  Chichester,  one  year     ....  306  0  4 

Priory   of   Kenilworth,   Stanes,    and   Kalewich,   one 

and  one  half  years     ......  445  10  9 

Ramsey,  one  year     .......  1,240  10  5 

Peterborough,  one  year    ......  1,000  15  2 

1211 

Tewkesbury,  three  and  one  half  years       .         .         .  359  1  8 

Holme,  over  one  year       ......  206  2  1 

Bishopric  of  Salisbury,  more  than  one  year       .         .  1,607  4  2 

Archbishopric  of  Canterbury,  one-half  year     .         .  1,105  17  5 

Priory  of  Canterbury,  one-half  year         .         .         .  809  0  7 

Kenilworth,  Stanes,  Kalewich,  one  year  .         .         .  372  2  4 

Einesham,  one  year           ......  115  17  4 

Abbotsbury,  one  year       ......  128  17  3 

Durham,  three  and  one  half  years  ....  16,787  14  10 

Ramsey,  one  year     .......  1,320  18  9 

Peterborough,   one   year    ......  808  17  2 

Exeter,  one  year       .......  516  9  7 

Battle,  two  years     .......  468  2  10 

1212 

Bishopric  of  Lincoln,  one  year          .         .         . 
Archbishopric  of  York,  one  year       ... 
Whitby,  two  years 
Ramsey,   one   year 
Exeter,  one-half  year 
Bishopric  of  Bath,  one  year 
Chichester,  two  years 

London,  one  and  three  fourths  years  .  . 
Kenilworth,  one-half  year 

Archbishopric  of  Canterbury,  one  year  .  . 
Priory  of  Canterbury,  one  year  ... 
Salisbury,  one  year  . 

Abbotsbury,  one  year  .  .  .  .  . 
Durham,  one  year 

Bishopric  of  Worcester,  one  year  ... 
Sherburne,  one  and  one  half  years  ... 
Middleton,  one  year  ..... 
Prior  of  St.  Edmunds,  farm  of  abbey  of  St. 

Edmunds  for  three  fourths  year         .         .         .         375      0      0 
Total         .........     53,474      3      9 


1,113 

9 

7 

1,242 

6 

4 

412 

12 

6 

1,219 

0 

8 

157 

9 

5 

640 

6 

9 

591 

9 

6 

978 

7 

3 

160 

5 

9 

1,152 

15 

9 

865 

2 

10 

625 

15 

9 

112 

3 

2 

2,650 

10 

6 

482 

5 

2 

205 

8 

1 

91 

0 

10 

107 


STUDIES  IN  TAXATION 

statement  in  the  Red  Book  of  the  exchequer  makes  it  about 
£100,000.66  The  arrangements  made  when  the  king  and 
the  pope  were  reconciled  show  that  the  total  sum  must 
have  been  very  large.  Innocent  III  thought  that  the 
indemnity  should  be  about  100,000  marks.67  John  him- 
self offered  to  compound  with  the  clergy  for  a  lump  sum 
at  this  figure  and  promised  to  pay  any  additional  damages 
which  should  be  fixed  by  the  bishops  and  the  legate.  This 
offer  was  not  accepted  by  the  English  prelates  as  they 
preferred  to  ascertain  first  the  total  amount  of  compen- 
sation due.68  It  was  finally  agreed  that  there  should  be 
an  investigation  of  the  whole  amount  of  damages.  In 
the  meantime,  John  was  to  pay  or  give  security  for  40,000 
marks  and  the  interdict  was  to  be  raised.  Then  the  king 

It  will  be  understood  that  these  sums  were  the  total  income  of 
each  of  the  clerical  divisions  during  the  time  indicated.  They  were 
not  in  all  respects  extraordinary  levies.  The  amount  in  each  case 
was  swelled  by  tallages,  aids,  or  scutage  levied  by  the  king,  such, 
for  example,  as  are  given  in  the  following  extracts  from  the  roll 
of  13  John:  Clerici  of  Wilts  and  Dorset,  £475  3s  9d  de  dono;  abbey 
of  Holme,  £57  12s  4d  de  auxilio;  clerici  of  Durham,  £735  9s  5d 
de  dono;  and  the  following,  de  tallagio:  abbey  of  Ramsey,  £88  16s  8d; 
Peterborough,  £80  16s  8d;  Exeter,  £139  18s  4d;  Battle,  £73  11s  9d 
(Pipe  Roll,  13  John,  m.  4  d,  5  d,  13  d,  17  d).  The  account  of  Brian 
de  Insula  also  has  a  few  interesting  items:  40m  of  the  abbot  of  York 
de  dono;  100m  of  the  canons  of  York  de  dono;  £20  of  the  abbot  of 
Seleby  de  dono;  50m  of  master  Columb,  canon  of  York,  de  fine;  300m 
of  the  abbot  of  Rue  ford  de  fine;  429m  "de  dono  clericorum  de  Not- 
ingehamsira" ;  3,390m  12s  4d  "de  dono  clericorum  de  Everwicsira 
cum  Lankastr' ";  667m  12d  "de  dono  clericorum  episcopatus  Karleoli" 
(ibid.,  m.  14  d). 

so  "Recepta  a  rege  Johanne  de  episcopatibus,  abbatiis,  et  aliis 
clericis  Angliae,  tempore  interdict!  pro  Stephano  archiepiscopo  Can- 
tuariensi.  .  .  .  Summa  totalis  CM  li.  et  v  marc,  et  v  sol.  et  iii  den." 
(Red  Book,  II,  772-773).  Possibly  this  is  the  amount  reached  by 
the  investigation  mentioned  below. 

07  Ramsay,  Angevin  Empire,  p.  446;  Letters  of  Innocent  III,  lib. 
xvi,  no.  clxiv,  in  Migne,  Patrologice  Cursus  Completus  (Series 
Latina),  Vol.  CCXVI,  col.  953. 

es  Wend.,  Ill,  275. 

108 


UNDER  JOHN  AND  HENRY  III 

should  pay  12,000  marks  annually  in  two  payments  of 
6,000  marks  each,  one  on  Ascension  Day  and  the  other 
on  All  Saints  Day,  till  the  total  amount  of  compensation 
had  been  paid.89 

An  indication  of  discontent  among  the  laity,  or  of 
John's  fear  of  them,  seems  manifest  from  the  numerous 
fines  imposed  by  the  king  from  1209  till  1211  "pro 
habenda  benevolentia  regis."70 

In  1213,  there  was  danger  of  an  invasion  by  the  French. 
John  summoned  the  host  for  defense.  Efforts  were  made 
to  gather  as  large  an  army  as  possible,  and  with  success. 
But  even  in  this  case,  it  is  found  that  the  tenants  in  chief 
came  to  the  host  with  only  part  of  their  contingents.71 

THE  TAXES  OF  1214 

In  February,  1214,  John  invaded  Poitou.72  The  cam- 
paign lasted  about  eight  months,  till  September,  when  a 

69Cogg.,  p.  169;  Wend.,  Ill,  282;  Rot.  Chart.,  199a,  208b;  Rot. 
Litt.  Pat.,  p.  139a;  Norgate,  John  Lackland,  p.  206.  Sums  already 
paid  to  the  clergy  were  to  be  included.  Of  the  sum  of  40,000m,  to 
be  paid  before  the  interdict  was  lifted,  27,000m  seem  to  have  been 
actually  paid  (Wend.,  Ill,  283,  284) ;  the  payment  of  this  amount 
is  mentioned  in  Rot.  Litt.  Pat.,  pp.  106a,  107a,  in  December,  1213, 
and  January,  1214;  of  15,000m  in  December,  1213  (Rot.  Litt.  Glaus., 
I,  158a).  John  seems  to  have  been  faithfully  carrying  out  his  part 
of  the  bargain  till  the  war  broke  out  between  him  and  the  barons. 
About  November  1,  1214,  he  paid  the  bishops  6,000m  as  had  been 
agreed :  "et  liberate  domino  S.  Cantuariensis  archiepiscopo  et  episcopis 
vi  millia  marcarum  apud  S.  Paul'  London'  die  Sabbati  in  festo 
Omnium  Sanctorum  anno  eodem,  de  xii  millia  marcarum  solvendum 
per  annum  per  taxacionem  domini  papae"  (Rot.  Litt.  Glaus.,  I,  175b). 

™  Roger  Fitz  Adam  "r  c  de  mille  marcis  pro  habenda  benevolentia 
regis"  (Pipe  Roll,  11  John,  m.  15) ;  see  cases,  ibid.,  12  John,  Kent, 
in.  1 1  d :  Michael  Belet,  ibid.,  13  John,  m.  21  d. 

7i  There  is  an  account  of  praastita  made  by  John  to  members  of 
an  army  at  Canterbury.  The  date  is  given  as  14  John  and  probably 
relates  to  the  host  gathered  to  repel  Philip's  invasion.  In  each  case 
the  number  of  knights  supplied  by  each  tenant  is  given:  "Praestitum 
factum  militibus  apud  Cantuar' "  (Exch.  K.  R.  Accounts,  Bundle  325, 

109 


STUDIES  IN  TAXATION 

truce  was  concluded  with  Philip.73  The  force  which 
accompanied  the  king  was  considerable,  though  according 
to  one  writer,  most  of  the  earls  remained  at  home.74  In 
the  Pipe  Roll,  however,  many  of  the  chief  barons  account 

No.  2,  m.  2,  3).  It  will  be  noticed  that  some  of  the  tenants  have 
more  than  their  required  service.  The  following  are  some  cases: 

Service  Knights 

owed  furnished 

William  de  Tresgoz     ...         6  3 

Ralph   Musard    ....       15  10 

Robert  de  Mortemer  ...       23  9 

Hugo  Poinz         ....         7  2 

Gilbert  de  Gaunt          ...       68  10 

John  de  Munemue       ...       15  15 

John  de  Balun   ....         1  2 

Geoffrey   Hose    ....         1  2 

I  a 

Ralph  de  Saliceto 

Simon  de  Kime 
Walter  de  Estlegh       . 
William  de  Puntdelarch 
Philip  de  Columbiers  . 
Wiscard  Leidet  . 
Thurstan   Basset 
William  de  Albini 
William  de  Escotigni 
Simon  de  Cancy 
Geoffrey  de  Pavilly   . 
Earl  Devon 
Ingelram  Pratell 

The  service  owed  is  the  number  of  fees  for  which  each  tenant  is 
charged  in  the  Pipe  Roll  in  John's  reign  when  the  number  of  fees 
is  given  in  the  roll. 

72Cogg.,  p.  168;  Wend.,  Ill,  280.  He  had  plenty  of  money;  "et 
in  cariagio  xl  milia  marcarum  ...  a  Divisis  usque  ad  Winton' " 
(Pipe  Roll,  16  John,  Wilts,  m.  4)  ;  "ad  perficiendum  v  milia  mar- 
carum missarum  in  Flandr' "  (ibid.,  m.  3) ;  a  payment  of  40,000m 
was  ordered  on  February  1  (Rot.  Litt.  Pat.,  p.  llOa)  ;  see  also  Rot. 
Lift.  Glaus.,  I,  206,  209a. 

73  Rymer,  I,  124,  125. 

7*  "cum  paucis  comitibus  sed  innnita  multitudine  militum  inferioris 
fortunae"  (Cogg.,  p.  168). 


}  1  sergeant 

11£ 

5 

10 

2 

1 

2 

10 

3 

13 

2 

6 

2 

33 

10 

5 

2 

5 

2 

4 

2 

89 

20 

1 

3 

110 


UNDER  JOHN  AND  HENRY  III 

for  loans  received  in  Poitou  and  still  others  receive  writs 
acquitting  them  of  scutage.75  This  indicates  that  they 
performed  at  least  part  of  their  service.  The  number  of 
fees  taxed  was  somewhat  over  3,200.  This  leaves  about 
3,000  exempt  on  account  of  service.  But  the  number  of 
English  knights  who  were  with  the  host  did  not  reach 
the  latter  figure  because  the  tenants  in  chief  sent  only 
part  of  their  service.  The  rape  of  Hastings,  62/4  fees, 
sent  four  knights,  the  others  contributing  to  their  sup- 
port.78 Besides  the  greater  tenants,  the  army  contained 
lesser  tenants  and  mercenaries.77  The  array  was,  how- 
ever, insufficient  for  the  king's  needs  and  in  July  he  wrote 

TS  Pipe  Roll,  16  John,  passim. 

iQRot.  Litt.  Claus.,  I,  198a;  "Habere  faciatis  Thomae  de  Nevill' 
scutagium  suum  .  .  .  pro  exercitu  Pictaviae  in  quo  militem  suum 
nobiscum  habuit"  (ibid.,  177a) ;  he  held  &/&{$  fees  (Pipe  Roll,  16 
John,  Bucks  and  Bedf.,  m.  2).  In  the  Pipe  Roll  of  16  John  there  are 
for  the  first  time  systematic  accounts  in  nearly  all  the  counties  of 
loans  made  by  the  king  to  men  with  the  host  under  some  such  title  as 
"De  praestito  Pictaviae."  These  loans  were  in  part  repaid.  Occa- 
sionally the  number  of  knights  is  given  for  whose  use  the  money 
was  borrowed.  There  is  no  statement  that  this  is  the  whole  number 
of  knights  furnished  by  the  tenant,  but  it  seems  probable  that  often 
such  was  the  case.  The  examples  follow: 

Knights     Service 

County  furnished    owed 

Roger  de  Nevill,          Essex  and  Hert.    ...     1  1 

William  de  Tresgoz,        """...     1  6 

Matthew  Mantel,              """...     1  1 

Robert  Malduit,            Bucks  and  Bedf.   ...     1  1% 

Geoffrey  de  Say,          Kent 1  27 

William  de  Nevill,       Wilts 1  8^ 

Robert  de  Valoines,     Berks 1  2 

Robert  de  Amenevill,  Glouc 1  1 

Henry  de  Nevill,          Line.,  York     ....     2  3 

Earl  Arundel,                Sussex              .          .                   .5  84^ 

William  de  Bocland,    Berks 1  1 

77  "et  in  liberatione  CCC  Walensium  euntium  versus  Portesmue  in 
servitio  regis"  (Pipe  Roll,  16  John,  Heref.,  m.  13) ;  the  writs  of 
quittance  include  lesser  tenants;  see  also  note  76. 

Ill 


STUDIES  IN  TAXATION 

asking  that  more  of  the  English  knights  come  to  his  aid.78 
The  taxation  consisted  of  a  scutage  at  the  increased 
rate  of  three  marks  per  fee.  A  tallage  was  levied  this 
year,  though  not  for  the  campaign.  The  accounts  appear 
in  the  roll  of  Michaelmas,  1214.  The  order  for  the  levy 
of  the  scutage  was  issued  on  May  26,  during  the  campaign. 
Scutage  was  to  be  taken  from  all  tenants  in  chief,  royal 
demesne,  vacant  bishoprics,  wardships,  and  escheats, 
except  from  such  tenants  as  had  performed  their  service 
in  France.79  Thus  it  was  the  composition  for  service. 
No  fines  are  recorded.  The  amount  charged  was  £6,353 
16s  of  which  sum  £1,402  13s  lid  were  paid  in  1214.80 

There  was  opposition  to  the  levy.  The  Red  Book 
states  that  it  could  not  be  collected  from  the  prelates  or 
the  barons.81  The  Coventry  annals  say  that  the  Northern 
barons  refused  to  pay  it.82  The  letter  of  Innocent  III 
in  1215  urging  the  payment  testifies  to  this  feeling.83  In 
some  counties,  no  account  was  rendered  in  1214.84  The 

78  Rot.  Litt.  Pat.,  p.  118b. 
7»  Rot.  Litt.  Claus.,  I,  166b. 
so  The  following  is  the  account: 

£        s     d 

Clerical  tenants 955  12  4 

Eighty- four  lay  tenants  (each  5  or  more  fees)   .         .4612  1  7 

Other  lay  tenants  (each  fewer  than  5  fees,  etc.)  .         .       786  2  1 

Total 6353  16  0 

Paid  in  1214 1402  13  11 

Of  the  84  lay  holdings  above,  17  were  in  hand  or  on  honors  in  hand. 
In  the  group  of  lay  tenants  holding  fewer  than  5  fees  each  and  honors 
in  hand  are  included  Berchamstead,  £29  18s  6d;  Peverel,  £82  2s  8d; 
Wallingford,  £126  14s;  Laxington,  £27  11s  4d;  half  of  the  old 
enfeoffment  of  the  honor  of  Totness,  £55  17s  3d;  Lancaster,  £127 
12s  4d;  the  total  is  £449  16s  Id,  leaving  less  than  £350  on  tenants 
in  chief. 

si  Red  Book,  I,  12. 

82  Cov.,  II,  217-218. 

83  Rymer,  I,  128. 

s*  E.g.   in   Lancashire,   and   Essex  and    Hertfordshire,   nothing  is 

112 


UNDER  JOHN  AND  HENRY  III 

ground  on  which  the  opposition  was  based  was  not  that 
the  scutage  had  been  refused  by  the  barons,  but  that  this 
particular  scutage  was  illegal  because  service  in  France 
was  not  owed.85  This  contention  of  the  barons  was  his- 
torically wrong;  but  during  the  past  few  years  they  had 
been  continually  summoned  to  arms86  and  their  protest 
seems  to  have  been  directed  against  these  repeated  sum- 
mons, as  the  expression  of  a  desire  to  restrict  the  amount 
of  service  which  the  king  could  demand  from  his  tenants. 
It  is  not  true  to  say  that  none  of  the  barons  paid  the 
scutage.87  The  earl  of  Gloucester  paid  £72  out  of  £523  ;88 
Gilbert  Gaunt,  £31  13s  9d  out  of  £138  Is  4d;89  Nigel  de 
Luvetot,  £13  10s  8d  out  of  £20  ;90  John  de  Wahull,  £17 
6s  8d  out  of  £60. 91  The  Coventry  annals  state  that  many 
paid  it  but  that  some  of  the  northerners  refused.92  Thus 
while  the  whole  scutage  of  Northumberland  was  paid  in 
1214  or  1215,  no  return  was  made  for  Yorkshire.93  The 
government  of  John  therefore  considered  that  the  scutage 
was  legally  exacted ;  the  government  of  the  barons  during 
the  minority  of  Henry  III  took  the  same  ground.  The 
accounts  of  this  levy  appear  constantly  in  the  Pipe  Rolls 

recorded  as  paid,  and  in  Norfolk  and  Suffolk  almost  nothing.  In 
Yorkshire  there  is  no  account  at  all  in  1214. 

85  Cov.,  above;  Rymer,  above;  in  1213,  the  northern  barons  had 
objected  to  foreign  service  on  the  ground  that  they  were  not  bound 
to  do  this  by  the  tenure  of  their  lands  (Cogg.,  p.  167). 

s«In  1209,  the  Scottish  campaign;  in  1210,  Ireland;  in  1211,  a  long 
campaign  in  Wales;  in  1212,  in  Wales  (summoned  and  then  dis- 
missed) and  Scotland;  in  1213,  to  guard  the  coasts  against  Philip. 

87  See  above,  note  80,  for  the  amount  of  scutage  paid. 

88  Pipe  Roll,  16  John,  Glouc.,  m.  5  d. 
8»/6td.,  Line.,  m.  14  d. 

90  Ibid.,  Cant,  and  Hunt.,  m.  7 ;  on  ten  fees  in  capite,  not  his  whole 
holding. 

si  Ibid.,  Bucks  and  Bedf.,  m.  2. 

92  "dantibus  enim  illud  plurimis,  contradixerunt  ex  Aquilonaribus 
nonnulli"  (Cov.,  II,  217). 

93  Pipe  Roll,  16  and  17  John,  Northumb. 

113 


STUDIES  IN  TAXATION 

of  the  succeeding  years  and  from  time  to  time  small  sums 
are  entered  as  paid.94 

Yet  there  was  enough  opposition  to  make  the  collection 
difficult.  At  some  time  before  Magna  Carta  was  granted, 
the  financial  department  of  the  government  ceased  to 
work.95  The  great  difference  between  the  amount  charged 
and  that  paid  was  probably  due  in  part  to  the  opposition, 
and  in  part  to  the  fact  that  either  a  complete  list  of  the 
barons  who  received  writs  of  quittance  had  not  been  sent 
to  the  exchequer  or  that  it  was  lost  before  the  clerks  had 
entered  it  in  the  roll,  in  consequence  of  which,  men  were 

»*E.$r.  see  in  Pipe  Roll,  2  Henry  III,  Berks;  in  3  Henry  III, 
Essex  and  Hert.,  Bucks  and  Bedf.,  Notts,  and  Derby,  Berks,  Devon, 
Oxford,  Northamp.  In  Yorkshire,  there  is  no  account  in  1214,  but 
the  following  note  appears:  "Require  scutagium  Pictaviae  de  hoc 
comitatu  assisum  ad  iii  marc,  in  secundo  rotulo  regis  Henrici  tertii 
post  Everwicsiram  quia  a  tennino  rotuli  hujus  fuit  in  respectu  usque 
ad  rotulum  ilium"  (Pipe  Roll,  16  John,  York,  m.  8  d).  In  the  Pipe 
Roll  of  3  Henry  III,  the  account  is  entered  (m.  16)  with  a  note  to 
the  same  effect  as  above;  this  was  done  after  the  matter  had  been 
brought  before  the  council  and  discussed,  for  in  the  Memoranda 
Roll,  this  question  is  entered  as  one  which  is  to  be  considered: 
"loquendum"  (in  the  margin,  opposite  the  item)  "de  scutagio 
Pictaviae  in  comitatu  Eboracsirae"  (Exch.  L.  T.  R.  Misc.  Rolls, 
bundle  1,  no.  5,  Mem.  Roll,  3  Henry  III,  m.  2  d).  No  payment  is 
entered,  but  the  exchequer  evidently  considers  the  money  as  due  and 
plans  to  collect  it.  Several  religious  houses  paid  part  of  the  scutage 
in  1214:  Peterborough,  St.  Augustine,  Wilton,  Abingdon,  Evesham, 
and  Westminster  (Pipe  Roll,  16  John,  m.  2  d,  3  d,  4,  5,  10).  The 
prior  of  Coventry  paid  all  but  5m  in  1227  (Madox,  I,  640,  n.  w) ; 
the  abbot  of  Peterborough  made  his  last  payment  in  the  same  year 
(Chronicon  Petroburgense,  ed.  Stapleton,  Camden  Soc.,  p.  10).  Cf. 
Norgate,  John  Lackland,  p.  219:  "The  men  of  highest  standing  .  .  . 
had  either  gone  to  the  war  or  paid  their  scutage  for  it  without  a 
murmur  and  stood  utterly  aloof  from  the  group  of  'Northerners.' " 

95  "Cessaverunt  placita  scaccarii  et  vicecomitatuum  per  Angliam, 
quia  nullus  inventus  est,  qui  regi  censum  daret  vel  in  aliquo  obediret" 
(Wend.,  Ill,  301) ;  "Cancellatur  hie  quia  respondit  de  omnibus  recep- 
tis  suis  suprascriptis  de  tempore  pacis  .  .  .  sed  nichil  de  tempore 
guerrae"  (Pipe  Roll,  17  John,  Berks,  m.  4) ;  see  Turner,  "The  Minority 
of  Henry  III,"  in  Transactions  of  the  Royal  Historical  Society,  New 
Series,  XVIII,  284. 

114 


UNDER  JOHN  AND  HENRY  III 

charged  with  scutage  who  had  served.  Later,  tenants 
had  to  furnish  evidence  that  they  had  performed  their 
service  in  order  to  be  exempt.  The  earl  of  Salisbury  did 
this  ;96  William  de  St.  John  was  charged  in  1214  with  £114 
of  scutage;97  but  in  1222  it  was  shown  that  he  had  per- 
formed his  service;98  William  de  Scalariis  was  charged 
with  £30,  of  which  he  paid  20m ;  the  remainder  was  crossed 
off  later  because  it  was  proved  that  he  had  knights  with 
the  king.99  The  scutage  of  Poitou  was  therefore  put  in 
charge  and  collected  in  the  regular  way.100 

The  tenant  who  furnished  an  acceptable  number  of 
knights  was  quit  of  scutage  and  was  allowed  to  collect 
it  from  his  vassals  by  the  writ  de  scutagio  habendo.101  Nor 
was  it  necessary  to  furnish  the  full  quota  to  obtain  this 
writ.105  Exceptions  however  occurred.  Robert  de  Ros 
sent  his  son  and  paid  part  of  his  scutage  also,103  and  John 
de  Wahull  furnished  some  knights,  was  charged  with 
scutage,  and  paid  part  of  it.104  Thus  the  rear-vassal  had 

as  "Quia  protestatum  est  coram  nobis  (i.e.  rege)  et  consilio  nostro 
per  recordum  multorum  quod  W.  comes  Sarr'  fuit  in  Flandr'  in 
servicio  domini  J.  regis"  (Rot.  Litt.  Glaus.,  II,  4b) ;  also,  Robert  de 
Nevill,  Warren  Fitz  Gerold  (ibid.,  I,  511,  519b). 

97  Pipe  Roll,  16  John,  Hants,  m.  12  d. 

»8  Rot.  Litt.  Glaus.,  I,  521b. 

99  "Ricardus  nlius  Willelmi  de  Scalariis  debet  25  marc,  de  scutagio 
Pictaviae,  sed  non  debet  inde  summoned  quia  testatum  est  coram 
H.  de  Burgo  justiciario  et  baronibus  de  scaccario  quod  Willelmus  de 
Scalariis  pater  ipsius  Ricardi  habuit  milites  suos  in  Pictavia"  (Madox, 
I,  668,  n.  w,  6  Henry  III);  Pipe  Roll,  16  John,  m.  7;  Rot.  Litt. 
Glaus.,  I,  546b. 

100  Cf.  Ramsay,  Dawn  of  the  Constitution,  pp.  47-48.     That  little 
of  this  scutage  was  paid  in  Henry  Ill's  reign  is  no  evidence  that  it 
was  not  considered  legally  due;  little  of  any  scutage  was  paid  over 
three  years  after  it  was  put  in  charge. 

101  Rot.  Litt.  Glaus.,  I,  201. 

102  Those    men    who    furnished    partial    service    received    writs    of 
quittance. 

103  Pipe  Roll,  16  and  17  John,  Northumb.,  York. 

10*  He  accounts  for  10m  of  prcestita  of  Poitou  pro  militibus  suis; 
he  is  also  charged  with  £60  of  scutage,  pays  so  much  and  is  par- 

115 


STUDIES  IN  TAXATION 

to  pay  scutage.  If,  however,  the  latter  had  performed 
his  service,  neither  he  nor  his  lord  was  liable  for  the  amount 
owed  by  the  sub-tenant.  Peter  Fitz  Herbert  was  in  the 
army105  and  the  scutage  due  from  two  fees  which  he  held 
of  the  abbot  of  Hyde  was  pardoned  to  him  and  to  the  abbot 
also.loe  The  fact  already  stated  that  in  previous  levies 
the  exchequer  did  not  make  a  practice  of  collecting  scutage 
from  the  rear-vassal  receives  further  illustration  this  year. 
Peter  de  Scidmore  was  charged  with  fifteen  marks  on  five 
fees,  but  was  acquitted  because  he  held  nothing  of  the 
king  in  chief.107 

A  tallage  appears  in  the  roll  of  1214.  We  might 
expect  that  one  would  be  levied  in  connection  with  the 
campaign  in  Poitou,  for  no  tallage  had  been  taken  since 

doned  £30  (Pipe  Roll,  16  John,  Bucks  and  Bedf.,  m.  2).  Cf.  William 
de  Scalariis  who  paid  20m  and  was  acquitted  the  rest  on  account  of 
service  (above,  note  99). 

105  He  received  53  marks  as  a  loan  in  Poitou. 

iwibid.,  Hants,  m.  12  d.  Cf.  Geoffrey  de  Lucy,  one  fee  of  the 
abbot  of  Peterborough  (ibid.,  Northamp.,  m.  2  d).  Two  tenants  of 
Richard  de  Redvers  sent  knights  to  Poitou  for  which  service  they 
and  their  lord  were  quit  of  scutage  (Rot.  Lift.  Claus.,  I,  176b) ; 
also  Hugh  Pincerna  who  held  of  earl  David  (ibid.,  178a) ;  William 
de  Bedham,  not  to  pay  scutage  to  his  lord  on  account  of  service 
performed  (ibid.,  189a). 

107  Peter  de  Scidmore  owes  £10  on  5  fees  which  were  of  Robert 
de  Ewias  "sed  inde  quietus  est  quia  nichil  tenet  in  capite  de  rege 
sed  de  honore  de  Wias"  (Pipe  Roll,  16  John,  Wilts,  m.  4).  The 
statement  concerning  Peter  in  the  scutage  of  Wales  further  illustrates 
this  point.  He  was  charged  with  10m;  "in  thesauro  nichil  et  in 
perdon'  ipsi  Petro  x  marc,  per  breve  regis  quia  sunt  de  baronia 
Robert!  de  Wias  de  quibus  Robertus  respondet  et  quietus  est"  (Pipe 
Roll,  14  John,  Wilts,  m.  16).  Cf.  the  writ  to  the  sheriff  of  Berks  to 
collect  scutage  from  the  bishop  of  Bath  "et  si  illud  tibi  reddere 
voluerit  illud  capias  sin  autem  audias  responsum  illius  et  nobis  illud 
scire  facias  set  nullam  districtionem  ei  feodis  vel  hominibus  suis 
inde  facias  vel  fieri  permittas"  (Rot.  Lift.  Claus.,  I,  210a).  The 
ordinary  procedure  thus  seems  to  have  been  to  demand  scutage  from 
the  tenant  in  chief;  then  if  he  refused  to  pay,  distraint  would  be 
brought  to  compel  payment. 

116 


UNDER  JOHN  AND  HENRY  III 

1210, 10S  but  instead  the  grounds  assigned  for  the  tax 
were  to  raise  money  to  help  pay  the  indemnity  for  the 
withdrawal  of  the  interdict.109  It  was  all  charged  against 
manors  and  towns;  no  names  of  persons  appear  in  the 

i°8  A  tallage  was  not  always  levied  in  connection  with  a  campaign; 
none  was  levied  for  the  campaign  of  1201,  or  for  the  campaigns  of 
Scotland  or  Wales. 

109  .RoZ.  Litt.  Pat.,  p.  lllb.  The  writs  were  sent  out  March  8. 
There  is  no  statement  in  the  Pipe  Roll  of  1214  that  this  tallage  was 
levied  for  the  interdict,  but  later  references  show  it.  Bristol  is 
charged  in  1214  with  £500  of  tallage  and  paid  £321  4s  6d  and  owed 
still  £178  15s  6d  (Pipe  Roll,  16  John,  Glouc.,  m.  5  d).  In  1219,  the 
king  issues  his  writ  of  computate  to  the  exchequer  barons  for  the 
men  of  Bristol  for  40m  "quas  liberaverunt  in  camera  nostra  apud 
Gloucestriam  iii  die  Julii  anno  etc.  tercio  ...  in  partem  solutionis 
debiti  quod  nobis  debent  de  tallagio  facto  in  villa  Bristol!'  pro 
relaxacione  interdict!  tempore  Johannis  regis"  (Rot.  Litt.  Claiis., 

I,  394b).     The  barons  then  credit  the  men  of  Bristol  with  these  40 
marks   on  the  debt  still  due  of  their  tallage  of  1214:  "villata  de 
Bristoll'  r  c  de  c  et  Ixxviii  li.  et  xv  sol.  et  vi  den.  de  veteri  tallagio; 
in  thesauro  nichil  et  ipsi  regi  in  camera  sua  apud  Gloecestriam  tertio 
die  Julii  anno  etc.  tertio  .  .  .  xl  marcas"  (Pipe  Roll,  4  Henry  III, 
Glouc.,  m.  6).     In  1219,  the  burgesses  of  Northampton  account  for 
£218  1m  "de  tallagio  ad  relaxationem  interdicti"  (ibid.,  3  Henry  III, 
Northamp.,  m.  7).    That  is  the  sum  remaining  unpaid  of  the  tallage 
of  Northampton  in   1214    (ibid.,  16  John,  m.  2  d).     In   1218,   four 
villatas  owe  sums  "pro  eodem"    (viz.,  "auxilio  ...  ad  relaxacionem 
interdicti  tempore  regis  Johannis"),  "sed  non  debent  summoneri  quia 
quiete    sunt    in    rotulo    xvi    regis    Johannis"    (ibid.,    2    Henry    III, 
m.  4  d).     These  villatas  are  charged  with  these  same  sums  in  the 
tallage  of  1214  and  pay  them  and  are  quit  (ibid.,  16  John,  m.  10  d). 
The    town    of    Leicester    was    charged    with    an    aid    of    200m    "de 
auxilio  ...  ad    relaxacionem    interdicti    tempore     regis    Johannis" 
(ibid.,  2  Henry  III,  m.  4  d)  ;  its  tallage  in  1214  was  100m  of  which 
50m  were  paid  (ibid.,  16  John,  War.  and  Leic.,  m.  10  d).     It  may 
be  therefore  that  a  second  request  for  money  was  made.     The  king 
also  made  an  appeal  to  tenants  by  military  service  for  an  aid  to 
raise  the  interdict  (Rot.  Litt.  Pat.,  p.  lllb).     For  other  references 
to  this  aid  or  tallage,  see  Rot.  Litt.  Glaus.,  I,  208,  209a,  213a;  Madox, 

II,  259,  n.  I.    London  paid  2,000m  "de  tallagio  ad  relaxationem  inter- 
dicti"  (Madox,  I,  388,  n.  /;  707,  n.  m).     This  is  the  amount  of  its 
tallage  of   1214.     Lincoln  is  not  charged  with   tallage  in   1214;  in 
1218,  it  is  charged  with  £500  for  the  interdict  (Pipe  Roll,  2  Henry 

III,  Line.,  m.  9  d). 

117 


STUDIES  IN  TAXATION 

roll.  The  account  was  rendered  in  part  by  the  towns 
themselves  and  in  part  by  the  sheriff.  The  round  numbers 
in  the  charge  against  each  manor  or  town  indicate  that 
each  fined  in  a  lump  sum  and  arranged  the  incidence 
itself.  In  fixing  the  amount  of  the  fine,  the  king  was 
represented  by  the  sheriff  and  some  other  royal  officials.110 
The  king  might  pardon  the  sum  charged  against  any 
person,  in  which  case  the  tallage  on  the  town  was  dimin- 
ished by  that  amount.111  The  sum  charged  was  9,163m 
Os  lid,  of  which  4,186m  8s  6d  were  paid  in  1214.112 

no  The  tallage  of  Wallingford  was  made  by  the  sheriff  and  two 
other  men  (Pipe  Roll,  16  John,  Berks,  m.  5) ;  the  aid  of  200m  on 
Leicester  was  assessed  by  William  Briwerre  and  William  de  Chante- 
loup,  the  sheriff  (ibid.,  2  Henry  III,  m.  4  d). 

in  For  Geoffrey  de  Lucy  (ibid.,  16  John,  Kent,  m.  3  d). 

112  No  tallage  was  entered  in  Norfolk  and  Suffolk  and  Lancashire. 
In  Yorkshire,  only  York  was  entered. 


118 


CHAPTER  V 
THE  TAXES  IN  DETAIL  FROM  1216  TO  1229 

MAGNA  CARTA  stands  between  the  reigns  of  John 
and  Henry  III.  To  the  levy  of  scutage  it  set 
bounds  which  were  in  the  main  observed.  The  barons  no 
longer  feared  that  the  king  would  develop  a  means  of 
oppression  through  this  levy.  Tenants  were  still  obliged 
to  serve  in  the  host,  though  they  brought  only  part  of 
their  nominal  contingents  and  the  scutage  was  the  full 
composition  for  their  service.  The  fines  were  no  longer 
levied.  An  interesting  feature  of  this  period  is  that  five 
aids  were  levied :  three  carucages,  a  levy  on  knights'  fees, 
and  a  tax  on  personal  property.  The  levy  of  so  many 
taxes  is  to  be  explained  in  part  by  the  indemnity  to  Louis 
and  in  part  by  the  poverty  of  the  country  after  the  civil 
war,  but  it  is  altogether  likely  that  a  factor  of  importance 
was  the  reduction  in  the  royal  income  due  to  the  regula- 
tions of  the  charter.  This  decrease  can  be  well  illustrated 
from  the  four  scutages  which  were  taken.  The  sums 
received  from  each  were  much  smaller  than  under  John. 
In  the  scutage  of  Bedford,  the  whole  sum  charged,  much 
less  the  amount  actually  paid,  would  not  have  met  the 
expenses  of  the  siege  of  Bedford  castle.1  Three  tallages 
were  taken,  but  only  one  of  these  was  in  connection  with 
a  scutage. 

For  the  levy  of  the  aids,  it  will  be  noticed,  the  great 
council  was  always  summoned.  The  composition  of  this 
body  can  not  be  definitely  determined,  but  its  members 

i  See  below,  pp.  150,  159. 

119 


STUDIES  IN  TAXATION 

were  the  tenants  in  chief  and  theoretically  all  were  present, 
though  in  practice  this  theory  was  not  always  carried  out. 
The  assessment  and  the  collection  of  the  aids  show  nothing 
new.  The  aid  of  1217  (a  general  scutage)  probably  gives 
us  the  ordinary  method  of  collecting  the  scutage.  The 
methods  employed  in  the  carucage  and  the  tax  on  move- 
ables  resemble  in  general  those  in  use  under  Richard  and 
John,  though  there  were  variations  in  detail.  The  clergy 
sought  to  control  the  assessment  and  collection  of  the 
taxes  on  their  own  property. 

There  were  attempts  to  assess  the  property  of  religious 
bodies  which  were  not  represented  at  the  great  council 
and  which  did  not  hold  by  military  tenure.  These 
attempts  were  made,  not  because  the  great  council  repre- 
sented these  religious  bodies  and  its  consent  to  a  tax 
rendered  them  liable  to  pay  it,  but  rather  because  it  was 
customary  for  the  king  to  ask  the  religious  houses  for 
dona  when  other  parts  of  the  community  made  a  contri- 
bution, such  as  scutage.  In  general,  these  efforts  of  the 
king  were  not  successful;  for  the  religious  bodies  paid 
lump  sums  when  they  paid  anything.  Had  the  attempts 
succeeded  and  had  the  levies  been  made  as  the  govern- 
ment expected,  the  relation  of  these  religious  bodies  to 
taxation  would  have  been  completely  changed.  They 
would  have  become  regular  contributors  to  the  govern- 
ment on  the  assessed  value  of  their  property.  By  the 
old  method,  no  house  was  liable  unless  the  royal  officers, 
specially  delegated  for  this  work,  asked  for  a  donum. 
By  the  new  method,  all  houses  possessing  property  would 
have  been  liable  to  assessment  by  the  regular  assessors 
of  the  county  and  would  have  had  to  get  a  special  writ 
from  the  king  either  to  be  exempt  or  to  be  allowed  to 
compound.  The  presumption  would  have  been  that  they 
owed  a  tax  to  the  king,  because  they  had  property. 

Another  feature  of  this  period  was  that  the  tenants  in 

120 


UNDER  JOHN  AND  HENRY  III 

chief  watched  carefully  over  their  interests  in  taxation. 
This  feature  is  illustrated  by  the  refusal  of  the  bishop 
of  Winchester  to  pay  the  aid  of  1217,  by  the  general 
resistance  to  the  carucage  of  1220,  by  the  exaction  of 
the  promise  to  the  clergy  that  the  carucage  of  1224 
should  not  be  considered  a  precedent,  by  the  demand  for 
the  reissue  of  the  charter  before  the  aid  of  1225  was 
granted,  and  by  the  levy  of  scutage  without  additional 
fines. 

THE  TWENTIETH  FOE  THE  HOLY  LAND,  1216 

In  1216,  a  twentieth  of  spiritualities  for  three  years 
was  ordered  by  the  council  of  the  Lateran  for  the  benefit 
of  the  Holy  Land.  In  England  it  was  collected  by  the 
legate.2  Some  kind  of  an  appraisal  of  the  revenues  was 
made.3 

THE  TAXES  OF  1217 

During  the  war  against  Louis,  attempts  to  raise  money 
were  made  by  the  earl  marshal.  Some  clerical  tenants 
paid  fines  for  failure  to  send  knights  to  the  army.*  In 
certain  cases,  levies  were  arbitrarily  made  on  religious 
houses:  the  abbot  of  St.  Albans  paid  l,442%m  during 
the  civil  war,  part  to  Louis  and  part  to  the  partisans  of 
the  king,5  and  it  is  probable  that  this  was  not  an  isolated 
instance. 

The  carucage  of  1217  seems  to  have  been  another 
expedient  to  raise  money  for  the  war.  A  truce  had  been 

2  Wend.,  Ill,  343;  Wint.,  p.  83;  Dunst.,  p.  52;  Ann.  Camb.,  p.  72; 
Annales  Monasterii  de  Theokesberia,  ed.  Luard,  Rolls  Series,  p.  64. 

3  "vicesimam  reddituum  nostrorum  secundum  communem  aestima- 
tionem  bonorum  virorum  .  .  .  de  tribus  annis"   (Dunst.,  p.  52) ;  see 
below,  p.  178,  ijote  288. 

*  Pat.  Rolls,  I,  60,  61,  63. 

s  Gesta  Abbatum  Monasterii  S.  Albani,  ed.  Riley,  Rolls  Series, 
I,  296;  Theok.,  p.  62;  Wend.,  Ill,  358,  380;  IV,  6,  11. 

121 


STUDIES  IN  TAXATION 

made  in  January  between  Louis  and  the  barons  to  last 
till  April  22.  During  this  period,  with  Louis  absent  in 
France,  fighting  had  continued  with  the  advantage  on 
the  side  of  the  young  king.  During  this  truce  the  caru- 
cage  was  levied  after  consultation  with  some  at  least  of 
the  barons;8  it  was  in  process  of  collection  in  April,  but 
was  probably  put  in  charge  as  early  as  March.7  The 
notices  refer  to  it  as  "auxilium,"  "carucagium"  (or 
"caruagium")  and  "hidagium,"  separately  or  together.8 
The  use  of  both  terms,  hidage  and  carucage,  means  that 
the  tax  was  assessed  on  the  land,  which  was  measured  in 
some  counties  by  hides  and  in  others  by  carucates. 

A  complete  description  of  the  machinery  of  assessment 
and  collection  is  not  given,  but  from  the  brief  references 
in  several  writs,  part  of  the  machinery  may  be  made  out. 
In  each  county  there  was  a  body  of  knights,  called  the 
collectors  of  the  aid,  who  had  general  charge  of  the 
assessment  and  collection.9  The  sheriff  may  have  united 

« "assisum  fuit  per  consilium  regni  nostri"  (Rot.  Litt.  Claug.,  I, 
348b). 

i  Rot.  Litt.  Glaus.,  I,  306a,  335b;  on  April  14,  Falkes  de  Breaut6 
was  ordered  to  pay  at  once  to  Hubert  de  Burgh  500m  of  the  caru- 
cage received  in  his  counties.  Some  time  therefore  must  have  elapsed 
since  the  tax  was  put  in  charge  (Pat.  Rolls,  I,  56). 

8  "hydagium"   (Annales  Prioratus  de   Wigornia,  ed.  Luard,   Rolls 
Series,   p.   408);   "hidagium   et   caruagium";    "hidagium,   caruagium, 
et  auxilium";  "carrucagio  et  hydagio";  "scire  autem  facias  comiti 
W.  Marescallo  .  .  .  quot  hidas  vel  carucatas  terrae  habeant  in  ballia 
tua  et  de  quanto  debeant  de  caruagio  vel  hidagio  respondere"  (Rot. 
Litt.  Glaus.,  I,  306a,  310a,  335b,  348b)  ;  "de  hidagio  et  auxilio"  (Pat. 
Rolls,  I,  56). 

9  "Rex  vicecomiti   Berksir'  et  collectoribus  auxilii  ejusdem  comi~ 
tatus"    (Rot.   Lift.    Glaus.,    I,   307a) ;    "Rex  .  .  .  vicecomiti    Berkes,' 
Waltero  Foliot,  Waltero  de  Ripar,'  et  Johanni  Wigenholt'  salutem. 
Mandamus    vobis    quod    omnes    denarios    quos    recepistis    et    quos 
recipietis  de  hidagio  et  caruagio";  "mandavimus  vicecomiti   Berkes' 
et  Waltero  de  Ripar'  et  aliis  militibus  quos  attornavimus  ad  assiden- 
dum  et  recipiendum  hidagium  et  caruagium  comitatus  Berkes' "  (ibid., 
306a).     The  men  named  in  the  second  and  third  passages   are  the 
collectors  named  in  the  first.     Of  them,  Walter  Foliot  held  in  1212 

122 


UNDER  JOHN  AND  HENRY  III 

with  them  in  this  work.10  It  is  not  clear  whether  the 
money  was  actually  paid  by  the  taxpayers  directly  to 
these  county  collectors,  or  to  the  sheriff,  but  it  is  signifi- 
cant that  tenants  in  chief  did  not  make  the  collection  on 
their  lands,  except  by  special  permission.11  The  sheriff 
naturally  enforced  payment.12  The  money  in  each  county 
was  finally  delivered  to  the  sheriff  and  the  collectors. 
Sometimes  it  was  put  in  an  abbey  for  safe-keeping.13 

We  cannot  say  how  generally  the  tax  was  paid  through- 
out England.  Orders  concerning  its  payment  exist, 
addressed  to  the  sheriffs  of  nearly  all  the  counties  except 
in  the  southeast  where  Louis'  power  was  greatest.14  Nor 
can  we  say  what  proportion  of  the  land  paid  it  in  those 
counties  where  it  was  assessed.  We  know  that  it  was 
charged  against  both  the  laity  and  the  clergy.  Some  of 
the  religious  bodies  opposed  it.  By  the  influence  of  the 
legate,  they  were  induced  to  make  some  sort  of  a  grant, 
probably  in  lump  sums.15  None  of  the  notices  of  the  tax 

two  and  a  fourth  fees  of  the  honor  of  Wallingford  (Red  Book,  II, 
598),  so  that  this  board  may  have  been  made  up  of  knights  of  the 
county.  No  reference  to  the  board  of  assessors  appears  for  any 
county  but  Berkshire,  but  the  method  of  collection  would  be  the  same 
throughout  the  kingdom. 

1°  The  writs  are  addressed  to  him  with  the  collectors. 

n  For  Henry  de  Trublevill  to  assess  and  collect  (ibid.,  306b) ;  for 
William  Marshal,  the  younger,  "capere  hidagium  quod  assisum  fuit 
in  terris  et  tenementis  quod  dominus  rex  ei  concessit  (ibid.,  318b) ; 
for  William  Briwerre  "colligere  hidagium  terrae  suae  quoniam  inde 
respondebit  domino  regi"  (ibid.,  318a). 

12  To  him  were  issued  orders  to  permit  tenants  to  collect  the  tax 
themselves,   to   refrain    from   collecting   the   tax    from   certain   ones 
(ibid.,  335b,  336a) ;  see  also  the  references  in  note  11. 

13  In  Berks,  to  the  abbot  of  Abingdon  (ibid.,  306a). 
i*  Ibid.,  307a,  310a,  318,  319,  335b;  Pat.  Rolls,  I,  56. 

is  On  April  9,  1217,  the  sheriffs  were  ordered  not  to  collect  the 
tax  for  the  present  from  the  Hospitallers  because  they  were  to 
appear  on  April  25  before  the  legate  to  hear  his  advice  on  the  subject. 
They  were  however  to  report  to  the  regent  the  number  of  carucates 
held  by  this  order  in  their  counties.  Then  on  June  13,  the  sheriff  of 
Hants  was  ordered  to  exempt  all  religious  orders  from  the  carucage 

123 


STUDIES  IN  TAXATION 

specifically  refer  to  the  clerical  tenants  in  chief,  but  on 
July  8,  1217,  the  pope  wrote  Guala  that  the  bishops  and 
prelates  were  to  make  an  aid  juxta  facilitates  suas  which 
was  to  be  paid  to  the  legate.16  This  may  have  been  a  pay- 
ment in  addition  to  the  carucage;  at  any  rate  the  clergy 
made  some  sort  of  an  aid.  Some  tenants  were  allowed  to 
retain  the  carucage  for  their  own  use.17  An  interesting 
feature  of  the  levy  was  the  use  of  local  machinery  in  the 
assessment  and  collection. 

The  treaty  of  Lambeth  on  September  11  closed  the 
civil  war.  Louis  was  to  receive  10,000  marks  and  with- 
draw from  England.18  The  efforts  to  pay  this  indemnity 
show  the  financial  straits  of  the  government.  Part  of  the 
money  was  paid  before  the  French  prince  departed.19 
A  charter  binding  Henry  III  to  pay  6,000  marks  was 
drawn  up  and  deposited  with  the  Templars  at  Paris. 
Whether  this  was  the  balance  that  remained  unpaid  or  not 

"quoniam  ipsi  nobis  inde  satisfecerunt"  (Rot.  Litt.  Claus.,  I,  335b, 
336a).  This  second  order  seems  to  have  been  issued  as  a  result  of 
the  conference  held  by  Guala. 

is  Shirley,  Royal  Letters  of  Henry  III,  I,  532. 

"  E.g.  Robert  de  Mortimer  (Rot.  Litt.  Claus.,  I,  310a). 

is  "10,000m  que  ei  (Lodovico)  convencionatae  fuerunt  quando  pax 
formata  fuit  inter  nos  et  ipsum  L."  (Pat.  Rolls,  I,  284) ;  "Comes 
Willelmus  Marescallus  se  domino  Ludovico  pro  nobis  obligavit,  sub 
po3na  non  modica,  ad  solutionem  10,000  marcarum  pro  bono  pacis 
inter  nos  et  ipsum  L.  reformat*  .  .  .  tenemur  satisfacere"  (Shirley, 
I,  7);  15,000  marks  (Dungt.,  p.  51);  £10,000  (Chronica  de  Mailros, 
Bannatyne  Club,  p.  131);  17,000  marks  (Histoire  des  dues  de  JVor- 
mandie,  p.  204) ;  Wav.,  p.  288;  Cov.,  II,  239.  The  two  references  from 
official  documents  are  sufficient  to  fix  the  amount  of  the  indemnity 
which  the  English  government  paid  at  10,000  marks.  Louis  was  also 
to  receive  sums  from  towns  and  individuals  (Norgate,  The  Minority 
of  Henry  III,  p.  83),  a  fact  which  will  perhaps  explain,  as  Miss  Nor- 
gate suggests,  why  the  chroniclers  fixed  the  indemnity  at  more  than 
10,000  marks.  The  Londoners  lent  Louis  £1,000  (Liber  de  Antiquis 
Legibus,  p.  204) ;  according  to  Wendover,  the  sum  was  £5,000  (Wend., 
IV,  32). 

i9  "receptisque  suis  (i.e.  of  Louis)  qui  in  vinculis  tenebantur  et 
parte  pecuniae  promissae,  .  .  .  rediit  ad  sua"  (Cov.,  II,  239). 

124 


UNDER  JOHN  AND  HENRY  III 

on  Louis'  departure  is  not  clear.20  This  sum  was  to  be 
received  by  merchants  of  St.  Omer  who  acted  as  Louis' 
representatives  and  who  had  advanced  him  part  or  all  of 
this  amount.  The  government  hoped  to  pay  the  6,000 
marks  quickly.  Two  thousand  marks  were  to  be  can- 
celled by  the  immediate  delivery  to  the  merchants  of  100 
lasts  of  leather  and  100  sacks  of  wool.  From  the  sale 
of  the  leather  and  wool  the  merchants  would  be  able  to 
recoup  themselves  for  part  of  the  money  which  they  had 
advanced  to  Louis  and  have  some  profit  for  their  trouble. 
In  case  the  goods  were  not  delivered,  the  merchants  were 
to  receive  2,000  marks  in  money  plus  500  marks  for 
themselves.  The  balance  of  4,000  marks  was  to  be  paid 
them,  half  on  November  1,  1217,  and  half  on  February 
2,  1218.21  But  these  arrangements  could  not  be  carried 
out.  Wool  and  leather  were  seized,  money  was  borrowed,22 
but  in  August,  1218,  2,150  marks  of  the  debt  still  re- 
mained unpaid.23  In  addition  to  the  seizure  of  goods  and 
the  loans,  the  government  raised  money  by  an  aid  on 
knights'  fees  and  a  tallage.  The  final  payment  of  the 
indemnity  was  not  made  till  1221. 24 

The  aid  was  at  the  rate  of  two  marks  per  fee  and  was 
granted  by  a  great  council  held  on  October  20.25  That 

20  "carta    nostra,    quam    domino    Lodovico    fecimus    de    debito    vi 
milium    marcarum,    quam    magister    Templi    de    Parisius    habet    in 
custodia"  (Pat.  Rolls,  I,  168). 

21  Ibid.,  I,  114.     Provision  was  made  to  secure  both  Louis  and  the 
merchants  if  the  agreement  was  not  carried  out  (ibid.,  I,  114,  115). 

22  Ibid.,  I,   153;  Rot.  Litt.  Glaus.,  I,  351b,  360b,  369,  383a,  388b, 
459a,  G02a. 

23  Pat.  Rolls,  I,  168;  Rot.  Litt.  Claus.,  I,  381b. 

2*  Rot.  Litt.  Claus.,  I,  415a;  Pat.  Rolls,  I,  284.  The  last  payment 
of  500m  was  made  with  money  borrowed  from  the  bishop  of  Norwich. 

25  "ponitum  est  per  commune  consilium  regni  nostri"  (Rot.  Litt. 
Claus.,  I,  371a) ;  a  council  was  summoned  to  meet  on  October  20 
and  writs  concerning  collection  were  sent  out  on  October  30,  so 
that  probably  the  business  of  the  council  was  to  make  the  aid:  "ad 
concilium  quod  erit  London'  a  die  S.  Michaelis  in  tres  septimanas" 

125 


STUDIES  IN  TAXATION 

this  levy  was  made  for  the  purpose  of  paying  the  indem- 
nity to  Louis  is  shown  by  the  statement  in  the  Pipe  Roll 
that  it  was  assessed  to  deliver  England  from  the  French.26 
Further,  the  king  in  his  letter  asking  for  an  aid  from 
Ireland  stated  that  he  was  bound  to  pay  money  to  Louis 
on  November  30,  which  was  the  date  set  for  the  payment 
of  the  first  part  of  the  aid  in  England.  It  is  clear  that 
the  payment  to  Louis  was  connected  with  the  grant  of 
this  aid  by  the  English  tenants.  The  first  half  was  to 
be  paid  on  November  30  and  the  balance  on  the  following 
January  13.27  The  collection  was  not  completed  on  those 
dates  and  a  new  order  was  issued  that  the  balance  should 
all  be  paid  on  March  25,  121 8,28  but  the  command  was 
not  carried  out.29 

The  account  follows : 

M         s      d 

Clerical  tenants30 1,349       3     10 

One  hundred  and  sixty-five  lay  tenants  (each 

5  or  more  fees)31         ....     9,145       9       0 
Other  lay  tenants   (each  fewer  than  5  fees, 

etc.)32 603     11      11 

Total       .......  11,098     11        5 

Paid 4,227       8        1 

(ibid.,  336b)  ;  "quando  scutagium  primum  assisum  fuit  tempore  nostro 
ad  auxilium  nobis  faciendum"  (ibid.,  II,  87b) ;  "scutagium  positum 
de  novo  per  consilium  commune  comitum  et  baronum  nostrorum 
Angliae"  (Pat.  Rolls,  I,  125). 

20  "de  scutagio  assiso  anno  secundo  regni  regis  Henrici  III  ad 
Angliam  deliberandam  de  Francis"  (Pipe  Roll,  17  John,  Compotua 
honoris  Boloniae,  m.  1) ;  cited  in  Petit-Dutaillis,  £tude  sur  la  vie  et 
U  regne  de  Louis  VIII,  p.  177:  "scutagio  .  .  .  assiso  ...  ad  aquietan- 
dum  nos  versus  ipsum  L.  de  debito  quod  ei  debuimus  (Close  Rolls, 
I,  171). 

27  Rot.  Litt.  Claus.,  I,  S71a. 

28  Ibid.,  377b. 

2»  See  the  account  of  the  scutage  below  for  the  amount  paid, 
so  Two  holdings  are  omitted :  Canterbury,  60  fees,  and  Norwich, 
40  fees.    The  abbot  of  Westminster  accounted  for  only  22m  instead 

126 


UNDER  JOHN  AND  HENRY  III 

•  As  this  scutage  was  an  aid  on  all  fees,33  it  had  no  con- 
nection with  the  military  service  which  had  been  per- 
formed by  the  tenants  in  chief  during  the  war.  It  is  true 
that  some  men  were  excused  from  paying  it.  Robert  Fitz 
Walter  received  a  grant  of  all  his  scutage ;  William  Canti- 
lupe  received  half  of  his ;  Falkes  de  Breaute  after  five 
years  was  pardoned  his ;  Hubert  de  Burgh  received  fifty  | 
marks  collected  from  land  of  which  he  was  in  temporary  j 
possession.34  But  in  these  cases  it  seems  to  have  been 
a  matter  of  favor ;  they  were  men  high  in  the  government. 
The  case  of  the  bishop  of  Winchester  should  be  noted. 
He  was  excused  by  the  barons  of  the  exchequer  because 
he  had  never  assented  to  the  levy.35  Probably  the  fact 
that  the  bishop  was  one  of  the  chief  men  of  the  council 

of  30m.  The  bishop  of  Winchester  accounted  for  159m  instead  of 
120m;  he  paid  nothing  in  the  end.  There  are  some  other  variations 
from  the  numbers  given  by  Round  for  the  service  of  the  clergy:  the 
abbot  of  Holme  accounted  for  7m  10s  8d;  the  bishop  of  Exeter,  for 
31m;  the  abbot  of  Sherburne,  for  4m  5s  6d. 

si  This  includes  the  following  honors,  each  as  one  tenant:  Reginald 
de  Valtort  for  half  of  the  honor  of  Totness,  old  enfeoffment,  55m 
12s  5d;  the  sheriff  for  the  other  half  and  for  half  of  the  new  enfeoff- 
ment, 75m  7s  2d;  honor  of  Eye,  90^  fees;  Chokes,  28m;  Wermegay, 
28^m;  rape  of  Hastings,  125m;  Lancaster,  157m  8s  6d;  Wallingford, 
197m  11s  2d;  Peverel,  128m  7s  6d. 

32  This  includes  25m  of  the  honor  of  Brittany. 

33  This  gives  a  total  of  about  5,500  fees  in  England  which  account 
at  the  exchequer,  but  certain  holdings  were  omitted,  the  chief  of 
which  were:  100  fees  of  the  clergy;  the  county  of  Cornwall,  about 
220  fees;  128  fees  of  the  honor  of  Brittany  (see  above,  note  32)  ;  about 
112  fees  of  Boulogne;  106  fees  of  the  honors  of  Henry  de  Essex  and 
Hawenet   (see  Pipe  Roll,  38   Henry   III,   Essex  and  Hertford)  ;   54 
fees  of  the  holding  of  William  de  Braose  (ibid.,  Heref.)  ;  65  fees  of 
the  old  enfeoffment  of  Roger  Bigot;  60  fees  of  the  honor  of  Tickhill. 
This  gives  a  total  of  6,395  fees.     Roger  Bigot  held  125%  fees  of  the 
old  enfeoffment.     In  John's  reign  he  fined  with  the  king  to  answer 
for  60  fees   for  his  whole  holding  as  long  as  he  lived   (Madox,  I, 
190,  n.  /) ;  consequently  he  is  entered  in  the  roll  of  this  aid  as  owing 
on  60  fees  only. 

**Rot.  Lift.  Clans.,  I,  349b,  518a;  Pat.  Rolls,  I,  476. 
ss  Madox,  I,  675,  n.  q. 

127 


STUDIES  IN  TAXATION 

had  something  to  do  with  this  decision.  Some  men  were 
excused  for  service.  Geoffrey  de  Costentin  was  in  Ireland 
on  the  king's  service  at  this  time  and  his  assessment  was 
pardoned,  but  it  was  here  clearly  a  matter  of  favor,  not 
of  right.36 

The  tax  really  fell  on  the  rear-vassal  rather  than  on 
the  tenant  in  chief.  Many  tenants  obtained  writs  allowing 
them  to  collect  it  from  their  vassals  and  respond  for  it  at 
the  exchequer.  The  sheriff  was  to  aid  them  with  dis- 
traint.37 The  vassals  of  other  tenants  in  chief  were  to 
pay  it  to  the  sheriff  who  accounted  for  it.38 

Writs  for  the  levy  of  a  tallage  on  the  royal  demesne 
were  issued  in  November.  It  was  assessed  by  the  sheriff 
in  conjunction  with  special  officials  sent  into  the  county, 
who  were  sometimes  royal  justices,39  and  was  to  be  paid 
and  forwarded  to  the  exchequer  each  week.  The  towns 
usually  fined  in  lump  sums  for  their  tallage  and  thus 
obtained  the  privilege  of  making  their  own  assessment 
and  collection.40  Persons  and  vills  were  also  assessed  by 
the  justices,  for  their  names  are  entered  in  the  Pipe  Roll.41 
The  amount  charged  in  the  roll  is  about  2,500  marks 
and  1,613  marks  are  entered  as  paid.42  Several  counties 

36  Close  Rolls,  I,  171. 

37  Rot.  Litt.  Claus.,  I,  371a, 
ss  Pat.  Rolls,  I,  171. 

39  Pat.  Rolls,  I,  170,  171.    In  Kent,  Sussex,  Surrey,  and  Hants,  the 
tallagers  were  three  men  who  were  apparently  royal  clerks,  for  at 
the  same  time  they  were  to  examine  into  the  king's  escheats  in  those 
counties;  they  were  to  cooperate  with  the  sheriff.    In  Gloucester,  the 
tallage  was  assessed  by  William  Earl  Marshal,  William  de  Cantilupe, 
Ralph   Musard    (the   sheriff)    and   Henry    Fitz   Gerold    (Rot.   Litt. 
Claus.,  I,  375a)  ;  in  1218  William  de  Cantilupe  was  itinerant  justice 
(Pat.  Rolls,  I,  207)  ;  Mauricius  de  Turevill  and  Gilbert  de  Abing- 
wurth  were  tallagers  and  itinerant  justices  (ibid.,  I,  172,  207,  208). 

40  Pipe  Roll,  2  Henry  III,  passim;  Rot.  Litt.  Claus.,  I,  359a,  364b. 

41  Pipe  Roll,  2  Henry  III,  Norf.  and  Suff.,  m.  3  d;  War.  and  Leic., 
m.  5  d;  3  Henry  III,  Northumb.,  m.  14. 

42  Pipe  Roll,  2-6  Henry  III. 

128 


UNDER  JOHN  AND  HENRY  III 

are  omitted.43  Probably  the  tallage  did  not  yield  as 
much  as  usual  this  year  because  of  the  confusion  into 
which  the  war  had  thrown  the  kingdom.  This  is  indicated 
by  the  king's  letter  to  the  pope  explaining  why  the  tribute 
had  not  been  paid.44  An  aid  was  also  asked  of  all  the 
knights  in  Ireland  and  a  tallage  was  taken  on  the  king's 
demesne  there.45 

THE  CARUCAGE  OF  1220 

The  government  was  unable  to  pay  all  its  expenses 
from  the  ordinary  revenue  although  the  country  was  at 
peace.  In  1218,  it  had  asked  for  a  loan  of  2,000  marks 
to  defray  the  outlay  in  Aquitaine.46  The  pope's  tribute 
had  not  been  paid,  money  was  still  due  to  Louis,  and  there 
were  debts  to  others.47  Queen  Berengaria's  annual  fee 
of  £1,000  had  not  been  paid  since  the  beginning  of  the 
reign.  The  exchange  of  England  was  assigned  to  her 
with  other  revenues  and  in  addition  a  thousand  marks 

« Thirteen  counties  are  omitted,  among  them  London.  Perhaps 
the  money  given  by  the  capital  to  Louis  was  considered  as  its  tallage. 
Some  towns  may  have  made  a  fine  for  the  tallage  with  other  things 
as  did  Lincoln.  The  towns  of  Lincolnshire  do  not  appear  in  the  roll 
as  tallaged,  but  the  citizens  of  Lincoln  fined  in  200m  "ne  tallientur 
hoc  anno  occasione  tallagii  quod  assisum  fuit  super  dominica  regis; 
et  quod  habeant  villam  suam  ad  firmam  hoc  anno  sicut  habuerunt 
tempore  regis  J.  patris  regis  et  quod  de  hoc  anno  praedicto  sint 
quieti  de  £40  de  cremento  firmae  villae  suae"  (Pipe  Roll,  2  Henry  III, 
Line.,  m.  9  d).  Also  in  3  Henry  III  with  slightly  different  wording, 
quoted  in  Madox,  I,  413,  n.  h.  The  accounts  are  incomplete  in  those 
counties  in  which  returns  are  made. 

44  "non  est    facultas   hactenus    comitata,   turn   quia   ballivi   nostri, 
partibus  suis   depauperatis   per  guerram,  minus   solito   sufficiunt   ad 
scaccarium  nostrum  respondere"  (Shirley,  I,  7). 

45  Pat.  Rolls,  I,  125;  Rot.  Litt.  Claus.,  I,  375a. 

46  Two   thousand  marks   had  been   asked   from   La   Rochelle   and 
Bordeaux  (Pat.  Rolls,  I,  198)  ;  Rymer,  I,  155,  156;  Shirley,  I,  43-45. 

47  Pat.  Rolls,  I,  229,  232,  253,  284;  Rot.  Litt.  Claus.,  I,  442a. 

129 


STUDIES  IN  TAXATION 

were  promised  to  her  at  once.48  In  September,  1220,  the 
sum  of  2,007%  marks  was  borrowed  from  the  legate.49 
This  condition  of  the  exchequer  forced  the  government  to 
levy  an  extraordinary  contribution.50  In  the  summer  of 
1220,  probably  in  August,51  an  aid  was  taken  in  the  form 
of  a  carucage.  According  to  the  writs  of  collection,  the 
tax  was  levied  by  the  consent  of  a  council  composed  of  all 
the  magnates  and  faithful  of  the  realm.52  This  descrip- 
tion is  not  accurate,  for  the  barons  were  not  all  present, 
nor  had  they  all  been  summoned.  The  tenants  of  York- 
shire had  not  attended  the  meeting  and  had  not  been 
called  to  it.58 

The  opposition  of  the  Yorkshiremen  to  the  carucage 
reveals  the  existence  of  two  views  regarding  the  consti- 
tution of  a  council  which  should  have  the  authority  to 
grant  a  tax.  As  to  the  theory  in  the  case  there  was  no 
difference  of  opinion.  It  is  apparent  from  the  wording 
of  the  writs  that  the  government  no  less  than  the  northern 
barons  recognized  that  an  aid  had  to  be  granted  by  all 
the  tenants  in  chief  and  not  arbitrarily  levied  by  the  king. 

« Pat.  Rolls,  I,  244,  265;  she  seems  to  have  brought  pressure  to 
bear  on  the  government  by  the  pope,  for  William  Marshal  speaks  of 
a  threat  of  an  interdict  (Shirley,  I,  70). 

49  Pat.  Rolls,  I,  253.     This  was  money  collected  for  the  crusade. 

50  "pro  magna  necessitate  nostra  et  urgentissima  debitorum  nos- 
trorum  instancia  necnon  et  pro  conservacione  terrae  nostrae  Pictaviae 
concesserunt  etc."  (Rot.  Litt.  Clam.,  I,  437a). 

si  The  writs  for  its  assessment  were  issued  on  August  9  (ibid.). 
It  is  unlikely  that  the  government  would  wait  long  after  the  grant 
was  made  to  begin  the  collection  of  the  tax.  Ramsay,  Dawn  of  the 
Constitution,  p.  23,  says  that  it  was  granted  on  May  18  at  the  time 
of  the  coronation.  The  authorities  whom  he  cites  say  nothing  of  a 
grant  at  that  time  (Dunst.,  p.  60;  Wi»t.,  p.  83;  Wav.,  p.  293). 

52  "caruagio  assiso  per  commune  consilium  nostrum" ;  "concesserunt 
nobis  sui  gratia  communiter  omnes  magnates  et  fideles  tocius  regni 
nostri  donum  nobis  faciendum"  (Rot.  Litt.  Glaus.,  1,  442a,  437a). 

ss  The  opposition  of  the  Yorkshire  barons  is  described  in  a  letter 
of  the  sheriff  of  Yorkshire  to  Hubert  de  Burgh,  given  in  Shirley,  I, 
151. 

130 


UNDER  JOHN  AND  HENRY  III 

It  is  equally  clear  that  in  practice  this  theory  was  not 
carried  out,  but  that  part  only  of  the  barons  might  be 
summoned  to  a  council,  and  their  consent  would  be 
regarded  as  sufficient  authority  for  the  levy  of  an  aid. 
Nor  does  there  seem  to  be  anything  new  in  this  pro- 
cedure.5* The  tenants  of  Yorkshire  recognized  the  danger 
to  them  of  such  a  policy.  Their  protest  was  directed  not 
against  the  levy  of  the  aid,  but  against  the  method  by 
which  it  had  been  granted.  They  insisted  that  they  must 
give  their  consent  to  the  tax  before  it  could  be  assessed 
on  them.  That  is,  they  proposed  to  hold  the  king  strictly 
to  the  letter  of  the  law.55  This  opposition  was  still  more 
significant  from  the  fact  that  there  seems  to  have  been 
concerted  action  among  the  barons.  The  refusal  of  the 
bailiffs  to  take  any  action  at  all,  their  persistent  unanimity 
in  their  reply,  the  constitutional  grounds  which  they 
alleged  for  their  refusal,  all  suggest  this  conclusion.56 

s*  The  action  of  the  government  in  levying  an  aid  in  this  manner 
at  a  time  when  contests  with  the  barons  were  of  frequent  occurrence 
and  when  it  would  not  wish  to  provoke  opposition  by  illegal  exactions, 
the  evident  surprise  of  the  chamberlain  at  the  opposition  of  the 
Yorkshiremen,  his  willingness  to  proceed  to  extreme  measures  against 
them,  and  his  belief  that  he  was  in  a  position  to  enforce  his  demands 
are  evidence  of  the  truth  of  this  statement.  The  provision  in  Magna 
Carta  (c.  14)  that  the  consent  of  those  present  should  bind  the 
absent  is  somewhat  similar  to  this  practice,  though  all  were  to  be 
summoned.  A  scutage  for  war  was  usually  declared  by  those  tenants 
who  were  present  with  the  host  and  by  this  declaration  absentees 
were  bound;  such  scutage  was  not  however  an  aid  but  a  levy  taken 
because  of  the  king's  right  to  the  military  service  of  his  vassals, 
and  moreover  in  this  case  absentees  had  been  summoned  to  the  host. 
Yet  there  is  a  similarity  in  all  these  meetings  of  the  tenants  in  chief 
and  it  is  apparently  that  on  which  the  government  relied  in  1220, 
viz.,  that  most  of  the  chief  men  of  the  kingdom  had  been  consulted. 

ss  "Didici  tamen  a  quibusdam  eorum,  quod  si  dominus  rex  in 
adventu  suo  apud  Eborum  dictos  magnatos  convocaverit,  et  de 
praedicto  negotio  rogaverit,  ipsi  acquiescent,  et  praedictum  auxilium 
dari  facient"  (Shirley,  I,  151). 

56  The  barons  were  not  present  at  the  court  in  which  the  king's 
writ  for  the  assessment  was  read  out.  Their  bailiffs  after  consultation 

131 


STUDIES  IN  TAXATION 

V, 

It  is  probable  that  the  carucage  was  finally  levied  in 
Yorkshire,  but  under  circumstances  which  are  not  known.57 
In  some  other  counties,  the  king's  officers  did  not  collect 
the  tax.  The  reason  for  the  opposition  is  not  given,  but 
it  is  plain  that  if  the  tenants  were  unwilling  to  pay  the 
carucage,  it  could  not  be  assessed  and  collected.58  It  is 

among  themselves  replied  "quod  eorum  domini  de  hoc  auxilio  et  tal- 
lagio  domino  regi  dando  nihil  sciverunt,  nee  rogati  fuerunt.  Unde 
ipsi,  dominis  suis  inconsultis,  huic  tallagio  dando  non  ausi  fuerunt 
consentire,  dicentes  quod  magnates  de  partibus  illis,  sicut  et  alii 
de  Anglia,  vel  viva  voce  domini  regis,  vel  ipsius  literis,  ad  hoc  facien- 
dum rogari  debuerunt."  This  reply  did  not  seem  conclusive  to  the 
sheriff;  he  still  urged  them  to  proceed  to  the  assessment,  but  at 
length  at  their  request,  granted  them  a  delay  till  the  next  county 
court  that  in  the  meantime  "praeceptum  domini  regis  dominis  suis 
exponerent.  Unde  ad  diem  ilium  nihil  aliud  ab  eis  obtinere  potui." 
Stubbs,  Const.  Hist.,  II  (3rd  ed.),  223,  believes  from  this  that  "the 
concession  of  a  grant  was  regarded  as  falling  within  the  lawful 
power  of  a  local  assembly,"  viz.,  the  county  court.  That  the  question 
involved  is  not  the  power  of  the  county  court,  but  the  feudal  right 
of  a  tenant  not  to  pay  an  extraordinary  contribution  unless  he  gives 
his  consent  to  it  has  been  stated  by  Adams,  A.  H.  R.,  V,  649. 

57  See  the  statement  of  the  barons  in   note  55.     Inman,  Feudal 
Statistics,  p.  33,  note,  cites  a  payment  in  Yorkshire  in  4  Henry  III, 
but  does  not  give  his  authority.     "Vicecomes  habet  respectum  de 
compoto  carruagii  usque  ad  festum  S.  Michaelis  per  literas  domini 
regis  de  magno  sigillo"  (Exch.  L.  T.  R.,  Mem.  Roll,  7  Henry  III, 
D  11,  for  Yorkshire). 

58  A  list  of  names  is  given,  among  them  the  earl  marshal,  the  earl 
of  Salisbury,  the  bishop  of  Winchester,  the  earl  of  Chester,  and  the 
abbot  of  Reading,  and  the  following  comment  is  made:  "et  in  praedic- 
tis   terris   nullum   carucagium   fuit   assisum   vel   collectum   eo   quod 
domini    dictorum    feodorum    non    permiserunt   homines    suos    coram 
baylivis  domini  regis  comparere  ad  dictum  carucagium  assidendum" 
(Subsidies,  Bundle  73,  No.  Ib).     The  above  is  in  Berks  and  refers 
to  the  levy  of  1220,  because  in  the  document  there  is  a  reference  to 
William  de  Wancy  as  one  of  the  assessors  and  he  had  that  office 
in   Berks   in   1220.     "Vicecomes   dicit   quod   barones    de   Launcastre 
noluerunt  dare  carucagium"  (Exch.,  L.  T.  R.  [Compotus  of  7  Henry 
III],  8  Henry  III,  m.  9  d).    The  counties  of  Stafford  and  Salop  "non 
respondent   de    karrucagio"    (ibid.,   m.    17) ;    "vicecomes    dicit    quod 
comes    Warenn'   et   comes    Arundelli   non    permiserunt    carrucagium 
poni  super  terras  suas"  (ibid.,  9  Henry  III,  m.  6  d,  in  Sussex) ;  this 

132 


UNDER  JOHN  AND  HENRY  III 

possible  that  the  cause  of  the  resistance  of  these  other 
barons  was  the  same  as  that  of  the  Yorkshire  men. 

The  tax  was  levied  on  the  land  which  was  under  culti- 
vation on  June  24  of  this  year.  It  has  been  suggested 
that  the  levy  was  based  on  the  plough  team,  not  on  the 
land.  This  interpretation  rests  on  the  statement  that 
the  levy  was  made  "de  qualibet  caruca  sicut  juncta  fuit."59 
'Caruca'  however  was  in  use  at  the  time  for  the  word 
'carucata.'  In  1224,  Coggeshal  states  that  two  men  were 
summoned  to  the  siege  of  Bedford  castle  de  qualibet 
carruca,  an  expression  which  refers  to  the  land  and  is  so 
given  in  the  Dunstable  annals,  duos  operarios  de  singulis 
hidis.™  The  whole  phrase  used  in  the  writ  of  collection 
refers  as  well  to  the  land  under  cultivation  as  to  the 
team.61  Some  of  the  items  in  the  returns  show  that  the 
land  itself  was  measured  and  not  estimated  by  counting 
the  number  of  teams.  In  the  Testa  de  Nevill,  most  of  the 
items  say  "pro  x  carucis  y  solidi,"  an  abbreviated  form 
of  "pro  x  carucis  terrae,"  which  occasionally  appears  and 
means  'carucate.'62  Further,  if  the  teams  were  counted, 
it  is  difficult  to  see  how  such  fractional  amounts  could  be 
due  as,  2d,  7d  ob.,  5d,  7d,  3d,  lOd;  while  these  would  be 
expected  if  the  land  cultivated  were  the  basis  of  assess- 
last  item  comes  after  the  date  of  the  carucage  of  1224,  but  belongs, 
I  think,  to  the  carucage  of  1220  (see  below,  p.  153^). 

59  "Whereas  under  Richard  I,  as  under  all  his  predecessors,  the 
levy  was  made  upon  the  ploughland  (carucata),  we  find  it  raised 
under  Henry  III  not  from  the  land,  but  on  the  plough  team 
(caruca)"  (Round,  in  E.  H.  R.,  Ill,  507,  and  note  22). 

eo  Cogg.,  p.  206 ;  Dunst.,  p.  86. 

61  "de  qualibet  caruca  sicut  juncta  fuit  in  crastino  B.  Johannis 
Baptistae   proximo   praeterito  .  .  .  duos    solidos"    (Rot.   Litt.   Claus., 
I,  437a). 

62  "de  Saudon,  pro  x  carucis  terre  xx  solidi"  (Testa  de  Nevill,  pp. 
131-133) ;  that  the  meaning  of  "caruca  terrae"  is  carucate  is  shown 
by  the  following:  "Ibi  sunt  in  dominico  duae  carucae  terrae,  nesciunt 
quid   contineant"    (Cartularium  Monasterii   de   Rameseia,   ed.    Hart, 
Rolls  Series,  II,  42),  cited  by  Norgate,  below. 

133 


STUDIES  IN  TAXATION 

ment.63  It  seems  certain  therefore  that  the  land  was 
assessed  and  not  the  team.84  But  even  if  the  teams  were 
counted,  the  purpose  of  the  enumeration  was  not  to  levy 
a  tax  on  them,  but  to  find  out  the  amount  of  land  under 
cultivation,  so  that  in  any  case  it  was  a  land  tax.  The 
main  significance  of  the  levy  does  not  lie  here,  but  in  the 
fact  that  an  attempt  was  made  to  graduate  the  tax  to  a 
certain  kind  of  property  which  was  producing  wealth, 
instead  of  taking  an  old  customary  basis.  Thus  land 
which  was  waste,  although  formerly  cultivated,  escaped. 
In  this  particular,  the  carucage  was  a  step  toward 
taxation  based  on  personal  property. 

The  writs  of  collection  were  sent  out  August  9  and  the 
money  was  to  be  paid  at  the  exchequer  September  29.65 
By  November,  a  large  amount  had  been  collected.60  The 
carucage  was  paid  on  the  royal  demesne67  and  on  all 

63  pro  46  carucis  et  parte  £4  12s  2d. 

29  carucis  et  dim'  et  parte  59s  4d. 
6  carucis  et  parte  12s  7d  ob. 
16  carucis  et  dim'  et  parte  33s  5d. 
36  carucis  et  parte  72s  7d. 
20  carucis  et  parte  40s  7d. 

1  caruca  et  dim'  et  quadam  particula  3s  3d  ob. 
pro  partibus  car'  17d. 
pro  parte  carucae  lOd  (Testa,  above). 

Entries  similar  to  the  following  suggest  that  the  levy  was  based 
on  the  land:  "vi  car'  et  vii  toftae  soluerunt  xiii  sol.  ix  den."  (Lay 
Subsidies,  bundle  120,  no.  1.) 

«*  Round's  statements  are  combatted  by  Miss  Norgate  in  E.  H.  R., 
Ill,  702-704,  and  by  W.  H.  Stevenson,  ibid.,  IV,  108-110.    The  latter 
says,  "Surely  we  require  stronger  evidence  than  this   (i.e.  Round's) 
before  we  can  believe  that  carucage  was  ever  levied  on  the  team." 
65  Rot.  Litt.  Claus.,  above. 

6«  "Liberate  de  tribus  millia  marcarum  quas  recepistis  de  caruagio 
etc."  (ibid.,  I,  442a). 

°7  The  honor  of  Wallingford,  in  hand,  paid  it  (Vincent,  Lancashire 
Lay  Subsidies,  p.  140) ;  "de  quingentis  marcis  de  auxilio  nobis 
promisso  de  civitate  London' "  (Rot.  Litt.  Claus.,  I,  461a,  June  9, 
1221) ;  this  may  be  an  aid  in  a  lump  sum  for  the  carucage. 

134 


UNDER  JOHN  AND  HENRY  III 

lands  held  by  tenants  in  chief  including  their  demesnes.68 
Religious  houses  which  held  no  land  by  knight's  service 
paid  auxilia  in  lump  sums  to  the  diocesan  who  transmitted 
the  money  to  the  king.69  The  Cistercians  and  Premon- 
stratensians  were  exempt;  the  property  of  the  Templars 
and  Hospitallers  was  assessed;  they  obtained  a  stay  of 
collection  and  perhaps  paid  nothing  in  the  end.70  The 
tenants  on  the  royal  demesne  in  Ireland  were  asked  for 
an  aid.71 

The  machinery  of  assessment  and  collection  was  as 
follows :  the  sheriff  convened  the  county  court  and  had 
two  knights  elected  from  the  whole  county.  These  aided 
him  in  the  assessment  and  collection  of  the  tax.72  A  roll 
containing  the  vills  in  each  hundred  was  drawn  up,  prob- 
ably in  duplicate,  and  forwarded  to  the  exchequer  at 
Michaelmas.73  When  the  money  was  collected,  it  was 
sent  to  London  under  the  seals  of  the  three  assessors. 
The  writ  which  we  have  does  not  give  the  sheriff  full 

68  That  the  lay  tenants  in  chief  paid  it  on  their  demesnes,  see  ibid., 
442a,  in  which  Robert  Fitz  Walter  obtained  special  exemption  for 
his  demesne.  The  royal  officials  were  not  to  assess  the  demesnes 
of  the  clergy  (ibid.,  437a;  Testa,  p.  132;  Dunst.,  p.  60),  but  that  the 
clerical  tenants  paid  the  tax  on  their  demesnes  is  shown  by  an  order 
to  the  sheriff  of  Worcestershire  to  return  to  the  bishop  of  Worcester 
"totum  carucagium  quod  per  manum  tuam  cepisti  de  dominicis  terris 
et  feodis  ipsius  episcopi  de  quo  ipse  debet  per  manum  suam  nobis  res- 
pondere";  similar  orders  were  given  concerning  all  the  carucage  taken 
from  the  lands  of  any  religious  orders  which  "per  manum  suam  nobis 
inde  respondebant"  (Fine  Roll,  5  Henry  III,  part  1,  m.  6). 

es  Shirley,  I,  152;  Dunnt.,  p.  60. 

70  Rot.  Litt.   Claus.,  I,  428b.     The   number  of  their  carucae  was 
however  reported  to  the  exchequer  by  the  sheriff. 

71  Pat.  Rolls,  I,  253. 

™Rot.  Litt.  Claus.,  I,  437a.  In  Berks  there  were  four  knights: 
"distringas  quatuor  milites  de  comitatu  tuo  qui  assignati  fuerunt  ad 
caruagium  illud  assidendum"  (Exch.,  L.  T.  R.,  Mem.  Roll,  7  Henry 
III,  m.  12). 

tsRot.  Litt.  Claus.,  I,  428b,  437a.  Testa,  pp.  131-133,  where  the 
roll  of  Berks  is  summarized  by  hundreds,  giving  the  total  of  each 
vill;  Vincent,  p.  135,  has  given  in  detail  the  return  for  the  vill  of 

135 


STUDIES  IN  TAXATION 

instructions  concerning  the  assessment.  It  does  not  tell 
him  how  the  roll,  which  it  mentions,  was  to  be  drawn  up, 
nor  by  what  method  he  and  the  two  knights  were  to 
ascertain  the  number  of  ploughlands.  Either  there  was 
another  writ,  or  the  sheriff  followed  some  customary 
method.7*  The  lands  of  churchmen  held  by  their  knights 
and  free  tenants  were  assessed  by  the  county  officials,  but 
the  clergy  obtained  the  privilege  of  collecting  the  tax 
themselves,70  a  concession  which  might  be  extended  to 
lands  of  which  a  clerical  tenant  had  the  custody.76  Some- 
times a  county  fined  in  a  lump  sum  for  the  carucage.77 
The  tax  yielded  at  least  £5,483  11s  2d.78  It  does  not 
seem  to  have  been  heavier  than  a  scutage.79 

THE  SCUTAGE  OF  BIHAM,  1221 

In  January,  1221,  William,  earl  of  Albemarle,  rebelled 
and  seized  several  castles  in  the  north.  He  was  excom- 
municated; efforts  at  mediation  made  by  some  of  the 

Windsor  with  the  names  of  the  persons  taxed  and  the  number  of 
carucae  charged  against  each.  The  sheriff  and  the  knights  were  all 
equally  held  accountable  for  the  tax  by  the  exchequer  (Mem.  Roll, 
7  Henry  III,  above). 

74  Sometimes   the   sheriff   collected   the   tax  without   the   knights : 
"Alexander  de  Poutton'  et  Henricus  de  Lagngeton'  milites  assignati 
ad  caruagium  assidendum  et  colligendum  venerunt  (ad  scaccarium) 
et  dixerunt  quod  ex  precepto  vicecomitis  missi  sunt  unus  in  Lindesie 
et  alius  in  Catstevene  ad  colligendum  carrucagium  sed  nullum  habue- 
runt  rotulum  nee  aliquid  inde  receperunt  ut  dicunt  sed  vicecomes 
totum  recepit"  (ibid.,  m.  dll). 

75  Rot.  LiU.  Claus.,  I,  437b. 

76  Excerpta,  I,  53. 

77  "Episcopus  Exon',  barones,  milites  et  omnes  de  comitatu  Cornu- 
bias  r  c  de  D  marcis  ut  rex  constituat  eis  vicecomitem  ex  ipsis  et  pro 
quietantia  carrucagii  nuper  assisi  in  Anglia"   (Pipe  Roll,  6  Henry 
III,  Cornw.,  m.  9  d). 

78  Ramsay,  Dawn  of  the  Constitution,  p.  297. 

79  In  Norfolk  and  Suffolk,  except  in  the  liberties  of  St.  Edmunds, 
St.    Eldredo,    and    the    honor    of    Eye,    the    carucage    amounted    to 

136 


UNDER  JOHN  AND  HENRY  III 

barons  had  no  result.  When  Fotheringay  castle  was 
taken,  it  was  decided  by  a  council,  then  holding  at  London, 
to  take  active  measures  against  the  earl.80  On  January 
23,  Geoffrey  de  Neville  was  summoned  to  come  with  all 
the  men  whom  he  could  raise  as  soon  as  possible  to 
Northampton  to  proceed  against  the  earl.81  On  February 
2,  Philip  Mark  was  summoned  to  Biham  with  all  his 
forces.82  Before  January  27,  writs  had  been  sent  out  to 
other  sheriffs  ordering  them  to  summon  the  knights  to 
Northampton.83  Fotheringay  castle  was  abandoned  by 
the  partisans  of  the  earl84  and  the  royal  army  then 
proceeded  to  Biham  where  it  was  on  February  6.85  The 
castle  surrendered  after  a  siege  of  a  few  days.86  With 
this  capture  the  insurrection  soon  came  to  an  end,87 

£224  4s  (Exch.,  L.  T.  R.,  Mem.  Roll,  9  Henry  III,  m.  2) ;  in  Cam- 
bridgeshire, to  £134  6s  8d;  in  Northamptonshire,  to  £257  16s  4d 
(ibid.,  7  Henry  III,  m.  Dll). 

so  For  an  account  of  this  insurrection,  see  Turner,  "The  Minority 
of  Henry  III,"  Part  II,  in  Transactions  of  the  Royal  Historical 
Society,  Third  Series,  I,  243-256.  "Quod  cum  audisset  dominus 
Pandulfus,  .  .  .  et  totum  concilium  regis,  quod  tune  Londoniis  pro 
quibusdam  regni  negotiis  forte  convenerat"  (Dunst.,  pp.  63-64) ; 
besides  the  legate  there  were  present  the  archbishop  of  York,  ten 
bishops,  the  earls  of  Chester  and  Salisbury.  "Convenerunt  interim 
magnates  Angliae  ad  regem  apud  Westmonasterium  ut  de  negotiis 
regni  tractarent"  (Wend.,  IV,  67) ;  "concilio  quodam  quod  apud 
Londonias  post  octavas  Epiphaniae  coadunaverat"  (Cov.,  II,  247). 

si  Shirley,  I,  169. 

82  Rot.  Lift.  Glaus.,  I,  448b. 

83  "ad  opus  nunciorum  nostrorum  missorum  cum  brevibus  nostris 
de  militibus  summonendis  ad  veniendum  usque  ad  Norhamt' "  (ibid., 
447a) ;  on   February  3,   Hubert  de   Burgh  issued  orders  to   attack 
other  castles  (ibid.,  474b). 

s*  Dunst.,  p.  64. 

85  Hubert  de  Burgh  witnesses  a  writ  on  the  Close  Roll  at  Biham  on 
February  6  (Rot.  Litt.  Claus.,  I,  448b). 

ss  Wendover  (IV,  67)  says  that  the  siege  began  on  February  6 
and  ended  on  February  8;  6  days  (Dunst.,  above). 

87  On  February  17,  the  sheriff  of  Cambridgeshire  was  ordered  to 
take  no  measures  against  tenants  who  had  failed  to  answer  the 
summons  "quia  inde  ad  praesens  eis  parcere  volumus"  (Rot.  Litt. 

137 


STUDIES  IN  TAXATION 

The  array  of  Biham  is  spoken  of  as  large  by  one 
chronicler,  but  both  the  statements  of  the  chroniclers  and 
the  official  records  show  that  the  government  acted  with 
such  quickness  that  the  whole  feudal  array  would  not 
have  had  time  to  assemble.88  The  tenants  present  at  the 
council  probably  came  with  their  familia  and  some  of 
their  vassals.89  The  writs  for  summoning  the  host  did 
not  go  out  till  January  23  and  the  siege  ended  early  in 
February.90  Even  the  tenants  of  the  neighboring  county 
of  Cambridge  were  not  all  present,  but  part  at  least  of 
the  contingents  of  the  adjacent  counties  attended.91  In 
addition  to  tenants,  the  army  contained  mercenaries — 
knights,  sergeants,  and  crossbowmen.92  As  will  be  seen 
from  the  table  below,  only  about  800  fees  were  charged 
with  scutage.  This  means  that  over  5,000  fees  were 
exempt  on  account  of  service.  It  is  hardly  probable  that 
such  an  array  would  have  been  gathered.  Only  a  part  of 
the  service  can  have  been  performed.93  The  condition 
of  the  exchequer  is  shown  by  the  necessity  of  borrowing 
money  to  carry  on  the  siege.9* 

In  connection  with  this  campaign,  a  scutage  at  ten 
shillings  on  the  fee  was  taken.  It  was  probably  deter- 

Claus.,  I,  475a).  Apparently  there  was  no  further  use  for  the 
knights;  notice  that  this  was  in  an  adjacent  county. 

ss  Wend.,  above ;  "postmodum  vero,  communi  consilio,  contra  eum 
indixerunt,  et  statim  cum  exercitu  ipsum  sequentes"  (Dunat.,  above). 

8»  "comitante  secum  domino  legato  et  quibusdam  episcopis,  .  .  . 
confluentibus  etiam  ad  eum  tarn  comite  Cestrensi  quam  aliis  magna- 
tibus,  in  manu  valida  ad  comitem  insequendum"  (Cov.,  II,  248);  the 
writs  de  habendo  gcutagio  specially  exempt  rear-vassals  who  have 
performed  their  service  (Rot.  Litt.  Clans.,  I,  475a). 

so  Ibid. 

91  Madox,  I,  668,  n.  *  and  /. 

92  Rot .  Litt.  Glaus.,  I,  448,  453. 

93  Tenants  in  the  northern  counties  were  summoned  to  attack  other 
castles  of  the  earl  (ibid.,  474b).     All  this  would  hardly  make  neces- 
sary the  whole  force  of  England. 

94  Ibid.,  I,  465b.    The  legate  lent  £200. 

138 


UNDER  JOHN  AND  HENRY  III 

mined  on  at  the  close  of  the  siege.  This  conclusion  is 
suggested  by  the  low  rate  which  would  be  due  to  the 
shortness  of  the  campaign.  No  statement  has  come  down 
to  us  as  to  the  authority  by  which  this  tax  was  levied.95 
Probably  the  government  acted  because  it  had  the  right 
to  the  military  service  of  the  tenants,  for  writs  of  summons 
had  been  issued  and  a  campaign  had  been  fought,  though 
a  short  one.  The  barons  can  hardly  have  granted  the 
scutage  as  it  was  levied  only  on  those  tenants  who  had 
not  performed  their  service.96  The  account  follows : 

£    s    a 

Clerical  tenants 50  12  8 

Thirty  lay  tenants  (each  5  or  more  fees)97  .  236  9  3 
Other  lay  tenants  (each  fewer  than  5  fees, 

etc.)98 110  6  11 

Total 397  8  10 

Paid  in  1221  and  1222         .          .          .  80  16  2 

95  "Vigorous  action  was  taken  against  him  (earl  of  Albemarle).  .  .  . 
The  council  of  the  kingdom  granted  a  scutage  of  ten  shillings  on  the 
knight's  fee  and  before  the  end  of  February  Biham  was  dismantled" 
(Stubbs,  Const.  Hist.  [4th  ed.],  II,  33);  "Troops  were  called  out,  the 
council  granting  a  scutage  of  10s  on  the  knight's  fee"  (Ramsay,  Dawn 
of  the  Constitution,  p.  26,  but  based  on  Stubbs).  "Before  January 
was  over,  Pandulf  excommunicated  him  and  a  great  council  granted  a 
special  scutage,  'the  scutage  of  Bytham,'  to  equip  an  army  to  crush 
the  rebel"  (Tout,  Political  History  of  England,  1216-1377,  p.  21). 
The  chronicles  do  not  mention  the  scutage;  the  official  documents  say 
nothing  about  a  grant.  As  to  when  it  was  levied,  see  the  text. 

9c  There  would  doubtless  be  discussion  as  to  whether  the  king  would 
be  entitled  to  a  scutage  after  so  brief  a  campaign,  but  the  question 
would  be  what  were  his  rights  according  to  the  law. 

97  Two  men  are  charged  at  the  rate  of  2m  per  fee  (Pipe  Roll,  5 
Henry  III,  Dors,  and  Somers.,  m.  6  d).     It  is  probably  a  clerical 
error. 

98  Of  this  sum,   £57  were  charged  against  tenants  on  honors  in 
hand:  Wallingford,  Boulogne,  and  Cornwall  chiefly,  leaving  not  over 
£53  against  tenants  in  chief,  or  106  fees. 

139 


STUDIES  IN  TAXATION 

Thus  less  than  one-seventh  of  the  fees  were  charged  with 
scutage.  The  whole  sum,  if  received  promptly,  would  not 
have  paid  the  expenses  of  the  campaign.  Of  the  amount 
charged,  almost  nothing  was  paid  except  by  the  lesser 
tenants.  This  scutage  was  the  composition  for  service." 
No  fines  were  levied.  Those  men  who  answered  the  sum- 
mons, but  were  not  present  at  Biham,  were  also  granted 
writs  of  quittance.  The  knights  of  Lancashire  were  at 
the  castle  of  Skipton  and  were  acquitted.100  In  some 
cases,  fees  of  the  new  enfeoffment  were  charged  with 
scutage,  but  in  no  case  was  it  paid.  If  a  rear-vassal  per- 
formed his  service,  both  he  and  his  lord  were  exempt.101 
This  was  not  a  new  regulation,  but  up  to  this  time  it  had 
been  unusual  for  the  king's  writ  granting  the  right  to 
collect  scutage  to  mention  the  sub-tenant  in  this  way. 
The  inability  of  the  exchequer  to  compel  prompt  pay- 
ment is  illustrated  by  the  case  of  a  tenant  in  Berkshire, 
who  after  two  and  a  half  years  had  not  paid  her  scutage 
on  one  fee.102  Tenants  were  assisted  by  the  sheriff  to 
collect  scutage  from  their  vassals;  distraint  was  used.105 
The  amount  of  the  returns  of  this  levy  shows  that  there 
was  not  a  general  collection  from  the  rear-vassals  by  the 
sheriff. 

99  It  was  not  paid  by  tenants  who  had  performed  their  service; 
it  was  a  scutage  in  the  strict  sense  and  not  an  aid.     Cf.  Madox,  I, 
668,  n.  *  and  t,  for  the  counties  of  Lincoln,  Notts,  and  Derby;  Pipe 
Roll,  6  Henry  III,  for  Notts,  and  Derby,  Line.,  and  Lane.    The  abbot 
of  Pershore  "habet  quietantiam  per  breve  regis  quod  est  in  forulo 
marescalli  quia  milites  sui  fuerunt  in  exercitu"  (ibid.,  7  Henry  III, 
Wigorn.) ;  see  Nicholas  Avenel  (ibid.,  8  Henry  III,  Devon,  m.  16). 

100  Rot.  Litt.  Claus.,  1^  546b. 

loi/ftui.,  475a;  Pipe  Roll,  5  Henry  III,  Hereford,  m.  2  d. 

102  Rot.  Litt.  Claus.,  I,  574b;  the  earl  of  Albemarle  was  pardoned 
his  scutage  in  1227  (ibid.,  II,  172b). 

103  Madox,  I,  677,  n.  a.     There  are  references  to  the  use  of  dis- 
traint to  compel  tenants  to  perform  service  or  pay  scutage  in  Rot. 
Litt.  Claus.,  I,  465b,  475a. 

140 


UNDER  JOHN  AND  HENRY  III 

THE  POLL  TAX  OF  1222 

We  next  get  a  new  device  in  taxation,  a  poll  tax.  It 
was  granted  in  1222  in  the  great  council  as  an  aid  for 
the  Holy  Land.  The  writs  for  its  collection  were  issued 
on  June  25.  Each  earl  was  to  pay  three  marks,  each 
baron  one  mark,  each  knight  one  shilling,  each  free  tenant 
a  penny,  and  anyone  who  held  no  land,  but  who  had 
chattels  to  the  value  of  half  a  mark,  one  penny.104  Tenants 
of  churchmen,  men  in  cities,  boroughs,  and  the  rest  of 
the  king's  demesne  were  included.105  The  Templars  were 
exempt. 10C  There  was  immediate  opposition  to  the  tax; 
some  barons  declined  to  pay  it,  and  the  grant  in  the 
council  was  not  regarded  as  binding  on  all  tenants.  The 
Waverley  annals  state  that  it  was  soon  contradictum;  a 
short  time  after  the  writs  of  collection  had  been  issued, 
another  writ  was  sent  out,  stating  that  the  aid  was  made 
sine  districtione.107  The  consent  given  to  the  tax  there- 
fore was  individual;  there  was  no  corporate  action  of 
the  great  council. 

The  method  of  assessment  is  worth  notice.  In  each 
vill,  the  chaplain,  the  sergeants  of  lords  in  the  vill,  and 
two  legal  men  of  the  vill  assessed  and  collected  the  tax.108 
In  cities  and  boroughs,  this  work  was  done  by  two  legal 
men  of  the  corporation.105  Any  tenant  who  desired  was 
allowed  to  assess  and  collect  the  levy  on  his  own  lands. 11C 
The  receipts  were  to  be  deposited  with  the  Templars,  or 

i04jf2ot.  LiU.  Claus.,  I,  516b,  567a;    Wav.,  p.  296;   Cov.,   II,  252; 
Dunst.,  p.  67. 

105  R0t.  Litt.  Claus.,  I,  593a,  630a. 
ice  Ibid.,  594b. 

107  Wav.,  above ;  "praecepti  quod  fieri  fecimus  quod  comites,  barones, 
milites  et  libere  tenentes  facerent  eidem  regi  auxilium  sine  distric- 
tione"  (Rot.  Litt.  Claus.,  I,  518b). 

108  Ibid.,  516b^  56Ta. 

109  ibid. 

no  Ibid.,  593a,  630a. 

141 


STUDIES  IN  TAXATION 

Hospitallers,  or  in  a  monastery,  till  they  were  brought 
to  the  Temple  at  London,  the  sheriff  aiding  in  the  trans- 
portation. Some  of  the  tax  was  paid  to  the  sheriff,  who 
also  compelled  tenants  who  had  collected  it  on  their  own 
lands  to  transmit  the  money  to  the  exchequer.111  The 
tenants  in  chief  were  not  legally  bound  to  contribute,  but 
if  they  collected  anything  from  their  tenants,  they  were 
not  allowed  to  keep  it  for  their  own  use,  but  were  com- 
pelled to  deliver  it  to  the  sheriff  or  to  the  exchequer.112 
The  collection  lasted  for  the  next  three  years.112  Not 
much  would  be  realized  from  such  a  tax;  the  payment 
of  two  sums  is  recorded,  amounting  to  800  marks.114 

This  is  another  case  of  a  national  tax  which,  though 
not  levied  for  national  purposes,  helped  to  prepare  the 
way  for  national  taxation.  On  the  one  hand,  the  govern- 
ment became  accustomed  to  taking  a  tax  from  all  men 
in  the  realm  without  regard  to  their  status;  on  the  other 
hand,  tenants  of  all  grades  were  becoming  familiar  with 
the  practice  of  paying  a  contribution,  not  to  their  lords, 
but  to  the  royal  officials.  The  repeated  use  of  men  of 
the  locality  in  the  assessment  helped  to  make  the  govern- 
ment continue  this  practice.  The  feudal  tenant  was  pro- 
tected by  making  the  sergeants  of  the  lords  of  the  vill 
members  of  the  board  of  assessors  and  by  his  being  allowed 
the  privilege  of  levying  the  tax  himself.  The  amount 
realized  was  summed  up  by  the  exchequer ;  it  almost  seems 
as  though  the  government  intentionally  made  an  experi- 
ment for  its  own  guidance  in  the  future.115 

1"  Rot.  LHt.  Glaus.,  I,  516b,  567a,  593a,  630a. 

112  Ibid.,  I,  630a, 

us  See  orders  for  collection  in  1223  (ibid.) ;  in  1224  (ibid.,  593,  594). 

11*  The  Waverley  annals  say  that  the  grant  produced  little  or 
nothing.  The  two  payments  are  recorded  in  Pat.  Rolls,  I,  512,  527; 
Rot.  Litt.  Claus.,  II,  21b. 

us  "ut  possint  scire  quid  et  quantum  de  terra  cujuslibet  exierit 
et  summam  auxilii  tocius  regni  nostri"  (Rot.  Litt.  Claus.,  I,  516b). 

142 


UNDER  JOHN  AND  HENRY  III 

THE  TAXATION  OF  1223 

There  had  been  fighting  for  some  time  on  the  frontier 
between  the  English  lords  and  the  Welsh,  especially  in 
the  south  where  William  Marshal's  land  lay.  At  first  the 
government  had  taken  no  part  in  this  struggle,  but  finally 
in  May,  1223,  it  summoned  the  host  to  meet  in  June  at 
Worcester  for  a  campaign  against  the  Welsh.116  Some 
operations  took  place  during  the  summer.117  In  Septem- 
ber, Llewellyn  laid  siege  to  Builth,  one  of  the  king's  castles, 
and  on  September  12,  the  host  was  again  summoned  and 
Hubert  with  the  king  marched  into  Wales.118  After  a 

neMadox,  I,  653,  n.  x\  Rot.  Lift.  Clans.,  I,  569b;  Lords'  Report 
on  the  Dignity  of  a  Peer,  Vol.  Ill,  Appendix  I,  pp.  3-4. 

HT  Pat.  Rolls,  I,  407,  letters  of  protection  for  men  on  the  king's 
service  in  Wales  with  horses  and  arms;  Dunst.,  pp.  82-83. 

118  Wendover  states  that  in  1221,  Llewellyn  besieged  Builth  castle, 
that  the  warden,  Reginald  de  Braose,  appealed  to  the  king  for  help, 
that  there  was  a  royal  expedition  to  Wales  which  relieved  the  castle, 
at  the  close  of  which  the  magnates  were  granted  their  scutages: 
"concessis  magnatibus  de  quolibet  scuto  duas  marcas  argenti."  He 
speaks  of  a  war  in  1223  between  William  Marshal  and  Llewellyn, 
but  says  nothing  of  a  royal  expedition  or  a  scutage  (Wend.,  IV,  72, 
85).  It  is  probable  that  he  has  confused  the  accounts  of  the  two 
years.  The  truce  of  1221  was  between  William  Marshal,  Reginald 
de  Braose,  and  the  Welsh  prince  (Rymer,  I,  166);  the  king  was  not 
a  party  to  it.  Further,  Hubert  de  Burgh  who  accompanied  the 
king  on  all  these  expeditions  (Biham,  Kerry,  Bedford,  Brittany) 
was  not  in  Wales  in  1221 ;  he  did  not  witness  any  writ  that  year 
on  either  the  Patent  or  Close  Roll  in  Wales.  The  host  therefore 
probably  did  not  go  to  Wales  in  1221.  The  reference  to  a  scutage 
may  mean  that  the  king  granted  to  those  barons  who  were  fighting 
in  Wales  the  right  to  collect  it  from  their  tenants,  but  there  was  no 
general  levy  of  the  scutage  for  the  king  in  1221.  It  was  in  1223  that 
the  king  marched  into  Wales.  On  May  23,  the  host  was  summoned 
to  meet  at  Worcester  on  June  19  (Madox,  I,  653,  n.  #),  where  Hubert 
arrived  on  July  5  and  where  he  remained  till  July  15  (Pat.  Rolls, 
I,  376,  377).  Some  negotiations  seem  to  have  taken  place  (ibid., 
376,  406).  On  July  13,  orders  were  issued  to  protect  tenants  who 
were  fighting  in  Wales  under  William  Marshal  and  the  earl  of 
Salisbury  (ibid.,  407),  but  the  whole  host  does  not  seem  to  have  gone, 
for  on  September  12,  it  was  summoned  and  marched  into  Wales 

143 


STUDIES  IN  TAXATION 

brief  campaign,  a  truce  was  concluded.119     The  scutage 
of  Wales  was  levied  for  these  campaigns  and  it  was  strictly 
in  accordance  with  the  feudal  law.     It  appears  in  the 
Pipe  Roll  of  1224.120 
The  account  follows : 

M         s      d 

Clerical  tenants 266       2     10 

Thirty-seven    lay    tenants    (each    5    or    more 

fees) 1550     12       0 

Other  lay  tenants   (each  fewer  than  5  fees, 

etc.)121 780       1        1 

Total       .  2597       2       7 

Paid,  1224,  1225 683      12        8 

Fees  taxed,  about,  1,300. 

The  amount  of  the  tax  which  had  been  paid  two  years 
after  the  levy  had  been  put,  in  charge  was  trifling.  It 
would  by  no  means  meet  the  expenses  of  the  expedition.  A 
considerable  number  of  the  greater  lay  tenants  were  liable. 
In  some  cases  part  of  the  amount  due  from  a  vassal  was 

(Rymer,  I,  170).  Hubert  was  at  Montgomery  from  September  30 
till  October  10  (Rot.  Litt.  Glaus.,  I,  564-565).  Of.  an  entry  of  1224: 
"anno  proximo  praeterito  quando  fuimus  apud  Montgom'  cum  exercitu 
nostro"  (ibid.,  619a) ;  see  also,  Lords'  Report  on  the  Dignity  of  a 
Peer,  above. 

ii»  Pat.  Rolls,  I,  411,  412. 

120  The  account  for  Worcestershire  is  in  the  Pipe  Roll,  18  Henry 
III,  m.  10  d,  not  in  8  Henry  III.    The  date  of  the  levy  of  the  scutage 
is  uncertain.    In  August,  1223,  many  tenants  received  writs  granting 
them  the  right  to  collect  scutage  at  2m   from  their  vassals    (Rot. 
Litt.  Glaus.,  I,  570b,  571).     This  was  for  the  fighting  which  took 
place  during  the  summer.     It  is  likely  that  the  exchequer  did  not 
collect  a  scutage  till  the  close  of  the  campaign  which  the  king  waged 
in  September.     Some  of  the  tenants  who  received  writs  of  scutage 
in  August  also  received  writs  allowing  them  to  collect  an  aid  from 
their  freemen. 

121  Of  this  sum,  415  marks  were  levied  on  tenants  holding  of  honors 
in  hand:  Lancaster,  77m;  Brittany,  38m;   Wallingford,  95m;  Corn- 
wall, 18m;  Peverel,  86m;  Boulogne,  101m;  this  leaves  not  over  365m 
on  tenants  in  chief,  or  182^  fees. 

144 


UNDER  JOHN  AND  HENRY  III 

pardoned.  The  countess  of  Oxford,  30%  fees,  part 
pardoned;122  Richard  de  Cheltenham,  14  fees,  half 
pardoned;123  Gilbert  Gaunt,  £91  19s  lid,  half  par- 
doned;124 the  earl  of  Warwick,  204m  8s  lOd,  half 
pardoned;125  the  countess  of  Winchester,  142m  4d,  paid 
30m  and  the  rest  was  pardoned.126  This  scutage  was  not 
an  auxilium  in  the  technical  sense,  but  was  a  commutation 
of  military  service.  Those  tenants  who  were  present  in 
the  host  were  not  required  to  pay  it.  The  writs  excusing 
them  are  numerous.127  But  the  tenant  could  not  commute 
his  service  into  scutage  at  will.  The  king  retained  the 
right  to  demand  the  presence  of  his  tenants  in  the  field 
and  this  right  was  enforced.  The  abbess  of  Wilton  and 
twenty-one  other  tenants  failed  to  send  their  knights  to 
the  army  and,  as  a  consequence,  they  were  disseized.128 
Their  lands  were  returned  to  them  in  October,  to  some 
because  they  claimed  that  they  had  performed  their  ser- 
vice with  the  host.  Some  of  these  tenants  were  on  the 
Welsh  frontier  and  this  may  explain  the  strictness  with 
which  they  were  treated. 

Those  tenants  who  performed  a  satisfactory  amount 

122  Pipe  Roll,  8  Henry  III,  Essex  and  Herts.,  m.  7  d. 

123  ibid.,  Kent,  m.  9  d. 

124  Ibid.,  Line.,  m.  4  d. 

125  Ibid.,  War.  and  Leic.,  m.  8. 

126 ibid.  See  the  Scutage  Rolls,  no.  3  (7  Henry  III)  for  several 
tenants  who  were  to  receive  half  their  scutage  and  the  king  the  other 
half. 

M  Rot.  Lift.  Glaus.,  I,  574a,  579a,  580a,  609b;  II,  22b.  "Isti  sunt 
nomina  illorum  qui  in  propria  persona  sua  venerunt  vel  qui  debitum 
domino  regi  servicium  pro  se  miserunt  et  hii  habent  scutagia" 
(Scutage  Rolls,  no.  3,  m.  3).  No  fines  were  levied.  One  tenant 
offered  the  king  the  choice  between  five  shillings  and  a  horse  with 
a  "saccum  cum  broc"  (Rot.  Litt.  Glaus.,  I,  565a). 

128  Rot.  Litt.  Glaus.,  I,  572b,  566b,  573b,  628b,  629a.  John  de  Ponte 
Arch  owed  5m  "pro  habenda  saisina  terrse  de  Swindon'  que  capta 
fuit  in  manu  regis  eo  quod  non  fuit  in  exercitu  Walliae"  (Pipe  Roll, 
8  Henry  III,  Wilts,  m.  10). 

145 


STUDIES  IN  TAXATION 

of  service  got  the  right  to  take  scutage  from  their  vassals. 
The  bishop  of  Worcester  had  his  knights  in  the  army  and 
the  sheriff  was  ordered  to  cause  his  tenants  to  pay  him 
scutage.121  Placing  part  of  his  contingent  in  the  field 
would  sometimes  acquit  a  tenant  of  all  money  payment. 
Theoretically  he  would  be  excused  from  paying  only  such 
an  amount  as  corresponded  to  the  number  of  knights 
which  he  had  furnished,  but  in  practice,  if  this  number 
were  satisfactory,  the  rest  of  the  amount  due  from  him 
might  be  written  off  in  whole  or  in  part.  William  de 
Nevill  owed  16m  8s  lOd  on  8%  fees.  He  sent  two  knights 
to  the  army  and  was  acquitted  of  four  marks  of  scutage 
and  then  was  pardoned  the  rest.130  Robert  de  Cardinan 
sent  his  son  and  was  allowed  one-third  of  his  scutage.131 
But  the  tenant  could  not  be  sure  that  this  would  be  done 
by  the  exchequer.  The  prior  of  Coventry  sent  four  ser- 
geants (=  two  knights).  Four  marks  of  his  scutage  of 
twenty  marks  were  pardoned,  but  the  rest  was  paid.132 
A  rear-vassal  might  be  pardoned  his  scutage  and  in  that 
case  his  lord  also  would  be  quit.133 

Tenants  in  chief  sometimes  paid  the  scutage  either  to 
the  sheriff,  or  to  other  of  the  royal  officials  at  the  exche- 
quer, in  the  wardrobe,  or  "in  camera."1  The  sheriff  did 
not  make  a  general  collection  from  rear-vassals,  for  he 
would  not  ordinarily  collect  anything  from  the  tenants  of 
those  barons  who  had  performed  service  and  had  received 

129  Rot.  Lift.  Clous.,  I,  593b,  570b,  579a.  For  grants  to  tenants 
to  have  their  scutage,  see  also  above,  p.  145,  note  127. 

iso  pipe  Roll,  8  Henry  III,  Wilts,  m.  10;  Rot.  Litt.  Glaus.,  II,  92a. 

131  Excerpta  e  Rotulis  Finium,  ed.  Roberts  (Record  Com.),  I,  116. 

132  Pipe  Roll,  8  Henry  III,  War.  and  Leic.,  m.  8. 

iss  Pat.  Rolls,  I,  416;  for  Ralph  de  Trublevill  (Rot.  Litt.  Glaus., 
I,  579b);  for  Isabella  de  Dover  (ibid.,  583a). 

is*  "sciatis  quod  Willelmus  Talebot  pacavit  in  camera  nostra  xx  sol. 
et  ad  scaccarium  nostrum  dimidiam  marcam  pro  scutagio  suo"  (ibid., 
574b)  ;  "computate  Isabellae  de  Bolebec  .  .  .  xx  marc,  quas  liberavit 
in  garderoba  nostra  .  .  .  de  scutagio"  (ibid.,  613b). 

146 


UNDER  JOHN  AND  HENRY  III 

writs  of  quittance  and  the  right  to  collect  it  for  their  own 
use.  Nor  did  he  apparently  enter  at  once  the  lands  of 
those  tenants  who  owed  scutage  in  order  to  compel  the 
sub-vassals  to  pay  the  money  to  the  king.135  Evidence  for 
this  may  be  found  in  the  orders  issued  to  the  sheriff,  long 
after  the  scutage  was  put  in  charge,  to  allow  a  tenant 
to  collect  his  scutage  and  respond  for  it;136  and  also  in 
the  fact  that  it  was  not  necessary  for  tenants  in  chief 
to  obtain  writs  of  quittance  immediately  in  order  to  avoid 
paying  their  scutage  to  the  exchequer.137  The  small  pro- 
portion of  the  whole  amount  charged  which  had  been  paid 
by  September,  1224,  a  year  after  the  levy  had  been  put 
in  charge,  points  to  the  same  conclusion.  When  the  tenant 
collected  scutage  from  his  vassals,  he  often  needed  the 
king's  aid,  and  the  sheriff  was  ordered  to  assist  with 
distraint.138 

Returns  for  a  tallage  are  given  in  twenty-four  counties. 
This  tallage  had  nothing  to  do  with  the  campaign  in 
Wales,  for  the  writs  to  collect  it  were  issued  in  February. 
It  was  assessed  by  the  sheriff  in  conjunction  with  other 

136  William  Fitz  Richard  accounts  for  16s  8d  on  one  fee  (Mortain)  ; 
he  pays  8s  4d  and  owes  8s  4d  "sed  non  debet  summoneri  quia  tenet 
illud  dimidium  feodum  de  episcopo  Exon' "  (Pipe  Roll,  8  Henry  III, 
Cornw.,  m.  15  d)  ;  the  bishopric,  in  hand,  paid  scutage  this  year,  so 
that  this  means  that  the  sub-tenant  was  to  pay  through  the  bishopric 
and  not  to  the  king  direct.  Several  of  the  tenants  who  are  granted 
half  of  their  scutage  are  to  collect  it  "per  manum  suam"  (Scutage 
Rolls,  no.  3,  m.  3).  "Comitissa  Oxon'  habet  literas  de  scutagio 
directas  vicecomitibus  Oxon',  etc.,  et  colliget  scutagium  suum  per 
manum  suam  ad  opus  domini  regis  .  .  .  et  dominus  rex  habebit  totum 
scutagium"  (ibid.,  m.  2  d). 

136  For  Hugo  de  Balliol   (Rot.  Litt.  Glaus.,  II,  28,  April,  1225)  ; 
cf.  the  writ  of  December,  9  Henry  III,  for  a  similar  order  on  behalf 
of  Nigel  de  Mowbray  (Madox,  I,  679,  n.  fc). 

137  Rot.  Litt.  Glaus.,  I,  606a,  for  a  writ  of  June  23,  1224,  to  the 
sheriff  not  to  distrain  Hamo  Peke;  ibid.,  II,  22b. 

IBS  For  Hugo  de  Balliol  (ibid.,  II,  28) ;  for  the  bishop  of  Lincoln 
(ibid.,  I,  628b). 

147 


STUDIES  IN  TAXATION 

officials  specially  appointed  for  this  work.13£  The  towns 
fined  for  it  in  lump  sums  and  settled  the  incidence  of  it 
themselves;  lump  sums  were  also  charged  against  manors, 
and  some  men  dealt  directly  with  the  assessors.140  The 
amount  charged  was  4,680  marks.  Part  was  paid  by  the 
towns  directly  to  the  exchequer  and  part  to  the  sheriff.141 

THE  SCUTAGE  AND  THE  CARUCAGE  OF  BEDFORD,  1224 

This  year  occurred  the  rebellion  of  Falkes  de  Breaute. 
The  trouble  between  him  and  the  government  was  brought 
to  a  head  by  the  seizure  of  one  of  the  king's  justices  by 
William  de  Breaute  and  his  imprisonment  in  Bedford 
castle  by  Falkes'  orders.  The  news  of  this  attack  on  a 
royal  official  was  brought  to  a  great  council  which  was 
holding  at  Northampton.  By  the  advice  of  those  present 
it  was  determined  to  attack  the  castle  at  once.145  Falkes 

139  "Tallagium  maneriorum  et  dominicorum  regis  in  hoc  comitatu 
(Stafford)  assisum  per  Henricum  de  Alditheleg  vicecomitem  et  Willel- 
mum  Rufum  et  Willelmum  Pantolf"   (Pipe  Roll,  7  Henry  III,  m. 
5  d).    Rufus  and  Pantolf  were  justices  (Pat.  Rolls,  I,  394;  II,  218). 
"assignavimus  .  .  .  Falkesium    de    Br6aut6,    Radulfum    Hareng    et 
Robertum  de  Salceto  ad  talliandum  omnia  dominica  nostra  de  pre- 
dictis  comitatibus"  (Pat.  Rolls,  I,  403) ;  Falkes  was  the  sheriff  and  the 
others  were  justices  (ibid.,  408;  II,  84).    Other  appointments  to  levy 
the  tallage  are  mentioned  in  Pat.  Rolls,  I,  403-404;  the  men  asso- 
ciated  with   the   sheriff   are   in  most   cases,   probably  in   all,   royal 
justices.    The  tallage  given  here  all  appears  in  the  Pipe  Rolls  of 
7  and  8  Henry  III,  except  that  of  London,  which  is  in  the  Pipe  Roll, 
10  Henry  III,  m.  13  d:  "Gives  London'  r  c  de  M  li.  et  C  marc,  de  tal- 
lagio  civitatis  London'  facto  in  anno  vii  regis  coram  ipso  rege." 

140  pipe  Roll,  passim.    For  sums  charged  against  manors,  see  Pipe 
Roll,  7  Henry  III,  Salop,  m.  12  d;  for  persons  appearing  in  the  roll 
(ibid.,  Northumb.,  York,  m.  2,  11  d). 

Hi  Thus  in  Northumberland,  payments  were  made  at  the  exchequer 
by  the  sheriff  (ibid.,  m.  2) ;  part  of  the  tallage  of  the  city  of  Lincoln 
was  paid  at  the  exchequer  by  the  sheriff  and  part  by  the  citizens 
(ibid.,  Line.,  m.  8  d). 

i«  Wend.,  IV,  94-97;  Dunst.,  p.  86. 

148 


UNDER  JOHN  AND  HENRY  III 

and  his  followers  were  excommunicated.  The  justiciar 
issued  a  general  summons  to  the  host,1*3  to  which  most 
of  the  earls  and  barons  responded.144  On  June  20  he  laid 
siege  to  the  castle  which  was  defended  by  William.  On 
August  15  it  was  taken  and  this  marks  the  end  of  the 
campaign.145  It  would  not  be  necessary  for  the  whole  host 
to  gather  to  subdue  Falkes  and  probably  tenants  per- 
formed only  part  of  their  service.  The  tenants  in  chief 
of  Devonshire  who  went  to  Bedford  took  only  part  of 
their  quotas.146  The  bishop  of  Exeter  who  aided  the 
sheriff  in  his  blockade  of  Plympton  castle  in  that  county 
sent  only  three  knights  and  five  sergeants  (=  two  and  a 
half  knights),  whereas  he  owed  the  service  of  15% 
knights.147  The  besieging  force  was  increased  by  two 
men  from  each  hide  on  the  demesnes  of  churchmen  in  the 
vicinity  to  work  the  machines.148  Towns  were  also  sum- 
moned to  send  men  to  Bedford.  Two  are  mentioned, 
Guildford  in  Surrey  and  Derby,  and  as  these  lie  at  a 
good  distance  from  the  castle,  it  is  fair  to  conclude  that 
the  summons  was  not  confined  to  towns  in  the  vicinity  of 
Bedford.149 

143  "occasione  generalis  summon! tionis  factae  de  summonendis 
omnibus  qui  de  domino  rege  tenent  in  capite  ad  veniendum  in  exer- 
citum  Bedeford'"  (Rot.  Lift.  Claus.,  I,  614b). 

i**  Cogg.,  p.  206.  Only  a  fraction  of  the  fees  are  charged  with 
scutage;  see  the  account  below. 

1*5  Other  castles  of  Falkes'  were  attacked,  e.g.  Plympton  in  Devon 
(Shirley,  I,  232) ;  "rex  autem  interim  de  maneriis  Falcasii  et  terris 
ubique  per  Angliam  fecit  fruges  et  armenta  cum  rebus  aliis  distrahi 
et  infiscari"  (Wend.,  IV,  97).  Wendover  says  that  the  siege  began 
June  16  and  ended  August  15  (see  also  Chron.  Petroburgense,  ed. 
Stapleton,  Camden  Soc.,  p.  8) ;  Hubert  signs  at  Bedford  for  the 
first  time  on  June  21  (Rot.  Litt.  Clam.,  I,  605b). 

1*6  The  sheriff  summoned  the  knights  of  Devonshire  to  blockade 
Plympton  castle  and  they  replied  that  they  were  not  bound  to  do 
this  as  their  lords  were  with  the  king  at  Bedford  and  it  was  to  these 
that  they  owed  service.  Thus  it  is  evident  that  all  the  rear-vassals 
had  not  gone  to  Bedford  (Shirley,  I,  232). 

"7  Ibid.    The  Scutage  Roll  gives  evidence  that  lesser  tenants  still 

149 


STUDIES  IN  TAXATION 

The  expenses  of  this  campaign  made  extra  taxation 
necessary.  It  consisted  of  a  scutage  at  two  marks  per 
fee,  a  carucage,  and  fines  paid  by  some  of  the  towns. 

The  following  is  the  account  of  the  scutage: 

M  s       d 

Clerical  tenants           .          .          .          .          .          75  10     8 

Nineteen  lay  tenants  (each  6  or  more  fees)150  867  0  4 
Other  lay  tenants  (each  fewer  than  5  fees, 

etc.)161 420  5     9 

Total 1363  3     5 

Paid,  1224  and  1225 302  12     4 

Fees  taxed,  about,  680. 

continued  to  perform  service  in  person  or  by  furnishing  men  to  the 
host  and  that  in  cases  tenants  furnished  only  part  of  their  contingents : 

Knights 

fur- 
Fees  nished 

William  de  Fednes         2        2  Quit  in  Bucks  and  Bedf.,  Pipe 

Roll,  8  Henry  III. 
Gilbert  de  Laval  2        1  Pardoned  2m,  owes  2m,  North- 

umb.,  9  Henry  III. 

Picot  des  Lasceles         2}£     1  Quit,  Line.,  9  Henry  III. 

Geoffrey  de  Saucemar  2}£     1  Pardoned  2m,  pays  3m,  Line.,  9 

Henry  III. 

Henry  Hose  1        1  Quit,  Wilts,  8  Henry  III. 

Elias  de  Amundeville  3%     1  Quit,  Cant,  and  Hunt.,  9  Henry 

III. 

Hugh  de  Hodeng          4^     2  serg.    Quit,  Bucks,  8  Henry  III. 
Albreda  des  Boterels  8U     1 

1  serg."  Quit'  Wilts'  8  Henr3r  IIL 
Ralph  de  Cameis          1        2  serg.    Pardoned  i^m,  pays  l^m,  Norf. 

and  Suff.,  9  Henry  III. 
Robert  Loholt  1        1  serg.    Quit,  Essex  and  Hert.,  9  Henry 

III. 
Abbot  of  Malmesbury  3        1  Quit,  Wilts,  9  Henry  III. 

There  are  more  cases  in  the  Scutage  Roll  of  lesser  tenants  who  furnish 
service.  It  will  be  observed  from  the  list  given,  that  if  a  tenant 
provides  part  of  his  service,  he  may  yet  have  to  pay  some  scutage, 
but  in  most  of  these  cases,  he  pays  nothing.  The  roll  states  in  no 
case  how  much  service  a  great  tenant  provides.  The  above  is  from 
Scutage  Rolls,  no.  4,  m.  1,  2. 

150 


UNDER  JOHN  AND  HENRY  III 

The  scutage  was  put  in  charge  at  the  close  of  the 
siege152  and  was  to  be  paid  at  the  Michaelmas  exchequer.153 
As  is  seen  from  the  account,  this  was  not  done.  In 
November  a  new  date  for  payment  in  January  was  set.154 
By  whose  authority  was  it  taken?  On  this  point  there  is 
only  the  statement  of  Wendover  that  the  lay  and  clerical 
magnates  granted  the  king  a  carucage  and  he  granted 
them  their  scutages.155  If  the  chronicler  meant  scutaglum 
when  he  wrote  carucagium,  the  passage  might  suggest  that 
the  king  needed  the  consent  of  his  barons  to  take  the 
scutage.  It  is  to  be  noted  however  that  this  was  a  scutage 
in  the  strict  sense,  that  is,  it  was  taken  only  from  delin- 
quents. It  seems  probable  therefore  that  the  authority 
to  take  it  was  based  on  the  king's  right  to  military  service 
from  his  tenants.15' 

The  scutage  was  all  the  composition  which  was 
demanded.  No  fines  are  recorded.157  As  usual,  the  tenant 
who  had  performed  his  service  received  a  writ  of  quittance 

"8  Po£.  Rolls,  I,  464-465;  Dunst.,  above;  Cogg.,  above. 

1*9  Rot.  Litt.  Claus.,  I,  614b,  615a.  Both  of  these  towns  fined  to 
escape  service. 

iso  Five  of  these  tenants  hold  of  the  honor  of  Boulogne. 

isi  About  200m  are  against  tenants  on  honors  in  hand:  Lancaster, 
Wallingford,  Cornwall,  Peverel,  and  Boulogne,  leaving  220m  against 
tenants  in  chief. 

152  Wend.,  IV,  99. 

153  The  accounts  appear  in  the  Pipe  Roll  of  1224. 
is*  Rot.  Litt.  Glaus.,  II,  69b. 

155  Wend.,  above. 

ise  "Nulla  fit  hie  mentio  de  scutagio  de  Bedeford'  quia  omnes 
milites  de  comitatu  fuerunt  in  servicio  regis  et  habent  generalem 
quietanciam  per  unum  breve  regis"  (Pipe  Roll,  8  Henry  III,  Kent,  m. 
9  d).  "Quia  Johannis  Luvel  fuit  cum  domino  rege  in  exercitu  Bede- 
ford' .  .  .  mandatum  est  vicecomiti  Norfolc'  quod  de  scutagio  quod 
ab  eo  exigit  occasione  praedicti  exercitus  de  feodo  1  militis  que  de 
domino  rege  tenet  in  capite  pacem  ei  habere  faciat"  (Rot.  Litt. 
Claus.,  II,  lOb;  ibid.,  14b,  etc.). 

is?  It  is  not  quite  certain  that  no  fines  were  levied,  but  it  is  likely 
that  few  were  taken.  Notice  however  the  following  entry  from  an 

151 


STUDIES  IN  TAXATION 

and  was  allowed  to  collect  from  his  tenants.158  Nor  was 
it  necessary  that  a  tenant  perform  all  the  service  from 
his  tenement  in  order  to  obtain  all  his  scutage.  Between 
600  and  700  fees  made  a  money  contribution,  leaving  over 
5,000  fees  which  received  writs  of  quittance.  The  service 
from  this  number  of  fees  is  represented  by  the  forces  at 
Bedford  and  elsewhere;  it  is  not  probable  that  so  large 
a  number  of  knights  would  be  assembled  for  this  cam- 
paign.159 The  sheriff  accounted  for  part  of  the  levy;  he 
further  aided  tenants  in  chief  by  distraint  to  obtain  the 
scutage  from  their  vassals  whether  it  was  for  their  own 
use  or  for  payment  at  the  exchequer.160  It  will  be  remem- 
bered that  John  often  levied  fines  and  scutages  on  the 
tenants  of  lands  in  hand  heavier  than  they  were  accus- 
tomed to  render  to  their  lords.  This  policy  was  not 
followed  in  the  early  years  of  Henry  III.  In  1224,  the 
fee  of  the  earl  of  Devon  was  in  hand.  The  tenants  were 
ordered  to  pay  for  the  scutage  of  Bedford  what  they  used 
to  pay  their  lord  when  he  paid  scutage  to  the  king.161 

account  of  1224:  £99  1m  "de  furious  plurimum  qui  finem  fecerunt  pro 
militibus  et  servientibus  pro  exercitu  Bedeford'  quorum  nomina  anno- 
tantur  in  rotulo  que  praedicti  liberaverunt  in  garde roba"  (Exch., 
L.  T.  R.,  Foreign  Accounts,  no.  1,  m.  4). 

iss  Wend.,  above ;  service  anywhere  against  Falkes  was  ground  for 
exemption  from  scutage.  The  abbot  of  Tavistock  was  at  the  blockade 
of  Plympton  castle  and  received  half  his  scutage;  Ralph  Marescallus 
was  at  Berchamstead  and  received  all  of  his  (Rot.  Litt.  Claiu.,  II, 
la,  16a) ;  Scutage  Rolls,  no.  4. 

iss  See  above,  p.  150,  note  147,  as  to  partial  service. 

100  For  Hugo  de  Balliol  (Rot.  Litt.  Clous.,  II,  28a) ;  19a,  20b,  25a, 
69b.  Distraint  for  scutage  was  not  merely  threatened;  it  was  carried 
out:  "Mandatum  est  vicecomiti  Berk'  quod  demandam  quam  facit 
hominibus  de  Chaugrave  per  summonicionem  scaccarii  de  scutagio 
exercitus  Bedeford'  ponat  in  respectum  usque  proximum  compotum 
suum  et  averia  eorum  ea  occasione  capta  deliberari  faciet"  (ibid., 
II,  34b). 

161  "tale  auxilium  scutagii  .  .  .  quale  facere  consueverunt  .  .  . 
quando  scutagium  ab  eis  recepit  pro  exercitibus  summonitis  tarn  in 
Anglia  quam  Pictavia  et  alibi"  (Pat.  Rolls,  I,  499). 

152 


UNDER  JOHN  AND  HENRY  III 

The  government  acted  according  to  the  law  in  the  levy 
of  the  scutage. 

It  is  a  question  of  interest  whether  in  the  scutage  and 
carucage  we  have  two  levies  on  the  same  men.  Lay  tenants 
in  chief  either  performed  service  with  the  host  or  paid 
scutage.  Some  clerical  tenants  paid  a  carucage,  per- 
formed service,  or,  in  cases,  were  charged  with  scutage. 
Was  the  carucage  therefore  a  general  aid  paid  in  addi- 
tion to  the  scutage  or  in  addition  to  the  service  performed 
by  the  tenants?162  None  of  the  sources  state  clearly  that 
the  carucage  was  paid  by  the  lay  barons.  Four  chronicles 
mention  it,  three  of  which  speak  of  it  in  connection  with 
the  clergy  only.  The  annals  of  Dunstable  say  that  at 
the  siege  of  Bedford  the  archbishop  of  Canterbury  with 
his  bishops  and  abbots  came  to  the  king's  aid  and  in  addi- 
tion granted  him  a  carucage,  viz.,  half  a  mark  on  the 
carucae  of  their  demesne  lands,  and  two  shillings  on  those 
of  their  tenants.163  There  is  no  mention  of  the  lay  tenants 
in  chief.  The  Coventry  chronicle  says  that  the  aid  was 
granted  by  archbishop  Stephen  and  his  suffragans  who 
were  at  Bedford.164  Here,  too,  there  is  mention  only  of 
the  prelates.  Coggeshal  refers  apparently  to  the  carucage, 
though  not  by  name,  when  he  speaks  of  the  special  assist- 
ance in  men  and  money  contributed  by  the  prelates  of 
Canterbury.165  Roger  of  Wendover  states,  however,  that 

162  "The  grants  made  by  the  Canterbury  clergy  for  the  siege  of 
Bedford  were  supplemented  by  a  general  carucage  of  two  shillings 
on  the  hide,  with  a  scutage  of  two  marks  on  the  knight's  fee" 
(Ramsay,  Dawn  of  the  Constitution,  p.  37)  ;  "the  earls  and  barons, 
as  well  as  prelates,  of  the  whole  province  of  Canterbury,  joined  to 
grant  a  carucage  towards  the  expenses  of  the  struggle";  "a  scutage 
....  of  two  marks  .  .  .  for  the  siege  of  Bedford"  (Stubbs,  Const. 
Hist.  [4th  ed.],  II,  36,  and  note  3). 

IBS  Dunst.,  p.  86. 

i6*Cov.,  II,  254. 

IBS  "jn  hac  autem  die  de  obsidione  specialiter  claruit  consilium  et 
uuxilium  domini  Cantuariensis  et  aliorum  episcoporum  et  abbatum, 

153 


STUDIES  IN  TAXATION 

the  laity  and  the  prelates  granted  the  king  a  carucage  at 
two  marks  on  the  caruca  and  that  he  in  turn  granted  the 
magnates  their  scutages  at  two  marks  on  the  fee.166  This 
statement  is  open  to  question.  The  rate  of  the  carucage 
is  wrong;  Matthew  Paris  recognized  the  error  and  tried 
to  correct  it  by  changing  the  rate  to  two  shillings,187  but 
even  with  this  correction,  the  statement  is  incomplete. 
It  seems  probable  that  Wendover  confused  the  two  levies. 
From  this  evidence  alone,  we  may  doubt  whether  lay 
tenants  paid  the  carucage.  The  Patent  and  Close  Rolls 
are  full  of  references  to  both  the  scutage  and  the  caru- 
cage, but  with  a  single  exception  all  the  notices  of  the 
latter  tax  relate  to  the  carucage  of  the  prelates.  The 
roll  does  not  state  that  this  unique  case  of  a  carucage 
paid  by  lay  tenants  belongs  to  the  carucage  of  Bedford,188 
but  the  date  of  the  entry  falls  during  the  siege  of  the 
castle  and  hence  it  may  be  connected  with  the  levy  of 
1224.  It  belongs,  however,  I  think,  to  the  carucage  of 
1220.  Though  four  years  had  passed  since  that  tax  had 
been  put  in  charge,  orders  concerning  it  were  still  being 
issued.  In  May,  1223,  the  chancellor  was  ordered  to  allow 
the  prior  of  Durham  to  collect  his  carucage  by  his  own 
hand  and  respond  for  it  at  the  exchequer.169  In  June, 
1223,  the  sheriffs  of  Kent  and  Yorkshire  were  allowed  to 

qui  nimis  fideliter  regi  cum  toto  conanime  adhaeserunt,  qui  pecuniis 
ac  laboribus  nihil  hominibus  suis  in  aliquo  pepercerunt"  (Cogg.,  p. 
207). 

i«6  "Regi  vero,  pro  magnis  laboribus  suis  et  expensis,  tarn  a  praelatis 
quam  a  laicis  concessum  est  per  totam  Angliam  carucagium,  de 
qualibet  caruca  duae  marcae  argenti;  magnatibus  item  concessit  rex 
scutagium,  videlicet,  de  scuto  quolibet  duas  marcas  sterlingorum" 
(Wend.,  IV,  99). 

167  Matthew  Paris,  III,  88. 

IBS  This  statement  is  not  intended  as  evidence  that  the  case  does 
not  belong  to  the  carucage  of  1224,  but  is  introduced  to  bring  out 
the  point  that  the  only  reason  for  connecting  the  case  with  the 
carucage  of  Bedford  is  the  date  of  entry  in  the  roll. 

i«s  Rot.  Litt.  Glaus.,  I,  569b. 

154 


UNDER  JOHN  AND  HENRY  III 

postpone  rendering  their  accounts  of  the  carucage  till 
September,  1223.170  On  April  4,  1224,  the  sheriff  of 
Northumberland  was  ordered  to  allow  to  Hugh  de  Balliol 
ten  marks  of  the  carucage  demanded  of  him  by  the  sum- 
mons of  the  exchequer.171  On  August  8,  1224,  near  the 
close  of  the  siege,  the  king  acknowledged  the  receipt  of 
eight  pounds  from  the  prior  of  Ely  de  carucagio  Comitum 
et  Baronum,  a  payment  that  belongs  to  the  levy  of 
1220.172  The  possible  exception  referred  to  is  an  order 
to  the  sheriff  of  Northumberland  on  July  9,  1224,  com- 
manding him  to  pay  to  John  Wascelin,  constable  of 
Bamborough,  50  marks  "de  denariis  nostris  quos  recepisti 
de  carucagio  comitatus  tui."173  It  is  not  possible  to  fix 
certainly  the  date  of  the  grant  of  the  carucage  of  Bedford 
(see  below),  but  the  early  date  of  this  order,  and  the  fact 
that  the  same  sheriff  had  received  orders  not  long  before 
concerning  the  carucage  of  1220  make  it  reasonable  to 
assign  this  order  to  the  earlier  levy.174  Finally  it  should 

"0  R0t.  Lift.  Claus.,  I,  551b,  552a. 

i7i  Ibid.,  592a. 

i72/6tdv  615b,  640a.  This  is  the  entry  cited  by  Stubbs,  Const. 
Hist.,  II  (3rd  ed.),  36,  note  3,  and  by  Ramsay,  p.  37,  as  evidence  that 
lay  tenants  paid  the  carucage.  It  is  as  follows:  "Scias  quod  prior 
Elyensis  reddidit  nobis  in  garderoba  nostra  apud  Bedeford'  die 
Jovis  proxima  ante  festum  S.  Laurentii  anno  etc.  viii  octo  libras 
collectas  per  manus  ballivorum  suorum  infra  libertates  suas  in 
comitatu  tuo  de  carucagio  comitum  et  baronum."  That  this  pay- 
ment belongs  not  to  the  carucage  of  1224,  but  to  an  earlier  levy, 
probably  to  that  of  1220,  is  shown  by  an  entry  in  the  account  ren- 
dered by  Walter  de  Kirkeham  and  Walter  de  Brackele  of  their 
receipts  from  January  4  to  October  28,  1224,  one  item  of  which  is: 
"idem  r  c  de  .  .  .  viii  libris  de  priore  Elyensis  de  veteri  carrucagio" 
(Exch.,  L.  T.  R.,  Foreign  Accounts,  no.  1,  m.  4). 

ITS  Rot.  Lift.  Claus.,  I,  610b. 

174  A  case  of  February  1,  1225,  refers  to  carucage  on  the  land  of 
lay  tenants:  "Idem  etiam  abbas  (S.  Edmundi)  reddidit  .  .  .  x  libras 
et  v  solidos  tamquam  ballivus  de  carucagio  militum  et  libere  tenentium 
qui  infra  libertatem  suam  sunt  et  non  tenent  de  eo"  (Pat.  Rolls,  I, 
505).  It  is  likely  however  that  this  refers  to  the  carucage  of  1220,  for 
in  that  year  the  abbot  was  granted  the  privilege  of  collecting  that 

155 


STUDIES  IN  TAXATION 

be  observed  that  there  are  numerous  references  in  the 
Patent  and  Close  Rolls  to  the  scutage  of  Bedford  and  over 
fifty  references  to  the  carucage  of  Bedford  paid  by  the 
clergy.  When  such  a  wealth  of  writs  exists  concerning 
the  taxation  of  the  year,  it  is  highly  improbable  that  if 
there  had  been  a  general  levy  on  the  ploughlands  of  lay 
tenants,  there  should  be  so  little  evidence  of  it.  It  seems 
certain  therefore  that  the  carucage  was  paid  only  by  the 
clergy. 

This  levy  was  an  auxilium  made  by  certain  prelates, 
perhaps  by  all,  though  the  evidence  for  this  is  not  at 
hand,  of  the  provinces  of  both  Canterbury  and  York  on 
all  their  tenants,  without  regard  to  whether  they  had 
their  service  in  the  army  or  not.1"  As  this  was  an  aid, 
it  could  not  be  levied  without  the  consent  of  the  prelates. 
Some  sort  of  agreement  seems  to  have  been  arrived  at 
among  part  at  least  of  the  clergy  who  were  at  the  siege.176 
This  agreement  was  however  a  case  of  individual  not  of 
corporate  consent ;  it  bound  no  one  but  the  grantor.  Thus 
the  king  stated  that  the  individual  prelate  granted  him 

carucage  from  all  the  tenants  who  held  within  his  liberty  whether 
they  held  of  him  or  not,  a  permit  which  corresponds  to  this  entry 
of  1225.  The  writ  is  on  the  Fine  Roll:  "Rex  vicecomiti  Sufi"  salutem. 
Scias  quod  concessimus  abbati  S.  Edmundi  quod  colligat  per  manum 
suam  caruagium  ubique  infra  libertatem  S.  Edmundi  tarn  de  terra 
sua  quam  aliorum  omnium  quicumque  ipsi  fuerunt  infra(?)  eandem 
libertatem  et  nobis  respondeat  etc."  (Fine  Roll,  4  Henry  III,  part  1, 
m.  2). 

"5  That  York  as  well  as  Canterbury  paid  it,  see  below,  note  179. 

176  "a(j  castellum  de  Bedeford,  tarn  clerus  quam  populus,  pervene- 
runt"  (Wend.,  IV,  95) ;  "provisum  fuit  de  quodam  auxilio  regi 
faciendo  per  dominum  Stephanum  Cantuariensem  archiepiscopum 
ej  usque  suffraganeos  et  abbates  ibi  moram  facientes;  videlicet  de 
singulis  carucis  etc."  (Cov.,  II,  254);  "in  cujus  auxilium  venit  Can- 
tuariensis  archiepiscopus,  cum  episcopis  et  abbatibus  suffraganeis, 
et  insuper  concesserunt  ei  caruagium"  (Dun-st.,  p.  86) ;  "ad  quam 
obsidionem  confestim  advenit  archiepiscopus  Cantuariensis  cum 
potenti  virtute;  venerunt  et  alii  episcopi,  abbates  nigri,  comites  et 
barones  fere  totius  Angliae"  (Cogg.,  p.  206). 

156 


UNDER  JOHN  AND  HENRY  III 

the  carucage177  and  this  statement  was  not  a  mere  form. 
The  archbishop  of  York  and  the  bishop  of  Durham  were 
not  at  first  included,  either  because  they  were  not  present, 
or,  if  present,  would  not  consent.178  Both  these  prelates 
later  contributed.17'  The  early  payments  made  by  some 
prelates  during  the  siege  suggest  that  there  was  a  series 
of  individual  grants  at  first.180  Later  there  was  some 
concerted  action  which  did  not  bind  absentees.  The  grant 
was  significant  in  another  way.  The  king  issued  letters 
patent  that  it  should  not  form  a  precedent  for  future 
levies.181  This  was  the  first  of  a  long  series  of  such 
promises,  indicating  a  growing  sense  of  solidarity  among 
the  clergy  and  a  feeling  on  their  part  that  the  government 
must  be  bound  more  strictly  to  prevent  the  extension  of 
its  claims  in  taxation. 

There  is  no  definite  statement  of  the  date  of  the  grant. 
Most  of  the  payments  were  made  in  October  and  November, 
1224.182  Wendover  says  that  the  grant  was  made  at  the 
close  of  the  siege.183  The  king's  writ  to  the  clergy  prom- 
ising that  the  levy  would  not  form  a  precedent  for  future 
taxation  was  issued  on  August  18184  and  the  general  grant 
was  probably  made  at  the  same  time.  There  were  cases 
however  in  which  a  carucage  was  paid  by  prelates  during 
the  siege.  The  king  wrote,  on  July  18  or  19,  to  the  bishop 

177  "de  carucagio  episcopatus  Hereford'  quod  idem  episcopus  nobis 
gratis  concessit"  (Rot.  Litt.  Glaus.,  I,  613b)  ;  "de  carucagio  quod  idem 
abbas  (S.  Edmundi)  nobis  gratis  concessit  ad  auxilium  nobis  facien- 
dum" (ibid.,  616a) ;  letters  patent  were  issued  to  the  bishop  of  Bath, 
acknowledging  the  receipt  of  the  carucage,  "de  carucagio  ipsius 
episcopi  nobis  concesso"  (Pat.  Rolls,  II,  95). 

ITS  "praelati  provincie  Cantuariensis"  (ibid.,  I,  464). 

"9  Jbid.,  494,  495,  505. 

i80  See  below. 

isi  Pat.  Rolls,  I,  464;  Rymer,  I,  175. 

isa  pat.  Rolls,  I,  473  ff . 

isa  Wend.,  IV,  99.  The  other  chroniclers  say  that  it  was  granted 
at  the  time  of  the  siege. 

is*  Pat.  Rolls,  I,  464. 

157 


STUDIES  IN  TAXATION 

of  Winchester  concerning  125  marks  of  the  carucage  of 
the  abbots  and  priors  of  his  diocese.185  The  bishop  of 
Hereford  paid  £20  of  carucage  on  July  25.186  The  abbot 
of  St.  Edmunds  paid  70  marks  on  August  13.187  These 
were  probably  individual  grants  before  the  clergy  as  a 
whole  decided  to  make  an  aid. 

The  rate  at  which  the  carucage  was  levied  on  the  clergy 
is  given  in  detail  in  the  king's  letters  patent.  The  demesne 
lands  paid  half  a  mark  on  the  caruca;  the  knights,  free 
tenants,  and  villeins,  and  those  holding  of  the  knights 
and  free  tenants,  paid  two  shillings  on  the  caruca.188 
There  is  no  case  in  which  a  prelate  paid  both  scutage  and 
carucage.181  Some  service  in  the  army  was  performed 
by  clergy  who  paid  the  carucage.  Those  in  the  vicinity 
supplied  men  from  their  demesnes  to  work  the  machines.198 
Probably  they  furnished  their  knights  too.  The  abbot 
of  St.  Edmunds  performed  his  service191  and  paid 
carucage.192  So  this  levy  was  an  aid  and  not  a  compo- 
sition for  military  service.  No  statement  is  made  con- 
cerning the  method  of  assessment.  No  order  was  issued 
to  a  sheriff  in  connection  with  it.  It  was  collected  and 
paid  at  the  exchequer  by  the  officials  of  the  clergy.193  It 
is  not  possible  to  say  whether  it  was  levied  on  the  team 

iss  Rot.  Litt.  Claus.,  I,  612. 

186  Ibid.,  613b. 

187  ibid.,  616a. 

iss  Pat.  Rolls,  I,  464. 

189  The  abbot  of  Tavistock  was  charged  with  scutage,  half  of  which 
was  remitted  for  service  done  in  the  host  in  Devon,  but  he  may  not 
have  paid  carucage  (Rot.  Litt.  Claus.,  II,  16a).  The  abbot  of  West- 
minster paid  carucage  (Pat.  Rolls,  I,  494)  and  was  charged  with 
scutage  (Pipe  Roll,  18  Henry  III,  Wigorn.,  m.  10  d). 

iso  pat.  Rolls,  I,  464. 

191  Rot.  Litt.  Claus.,  I,  606b.     Perhaps  the  service  mentioned  here 
refers  to  the  grant  of  the  carucage.     The  abbot  was  also  pardoned 
half  his  scutage  of  Montgomery  for  this  service  at  Bedford. 

192  Pat.  Rolls,  I,  493. 
i»3  Ibid.,  473  ff. 

158 


UNDER  JOHN  AND  HENRY  III 

or  on  the  land.  The  references  all  speak  of  the  caruca, 
which  may  mean  either.  In  Hertfordshire,  two  men  were 
summoned  "de  singulis  carrucis"  to  pull  down  the  castle 
after  its  capture.194  It  is  interesting  to  compare  the 
amount  raised  by  the  carucage  with  that  realized  from 
the  scutage  of  Bedford.  An  incomplete  account  of  the 
carucage  gives  3,565m  12s  6d.195  The  clergy  therefore 
paid  much  more  than  they  would  have  paid  in  scutage.196 
As  usual  there  are  notices  of  borrowing  money  to  carry 
on  the  campaign.197  An  account  of  the  siege  gives  the 
cost  as  £1,311  18s  2d;198  this  may  not  be  complete. 

THE  TAXATION  OF  1225 

The  truce  between  France  and  England  ran  out  in 
1224  and  was  not  renewed.  Louis  VIII  invaded  Poitou 
and  Gascony  in  the  summer  with  success.  Some  rein- 
forcements were  sent  from  England.199  In  June  a  great 
council  was  held  at  Northampton  to  consider  the  affairs 
of  Gascony.  The  uprising  of  Falkes  de  Breaute  made  it 
necessary  to  postpone  the  matter.200  Although  the  council 
believed  that  it  would  not  be  difficult  to  drive  out  the 

194  Rot.  Lift.  Glaus.,  I,  655a. 

195  Exch.,  L.  T.  R.,  Foreign  Accounts,  no.  1,  m.  4.     This  is  the 
amount  paid,  not  charged.     Not  all  the  religious  clergy  who  contri- 
buted held  by  military  tenure.     Entries  in  the  Patent  Roll  acknowl- 
edge the  payment  of  3,461m  4s  lOd. 

196  The  clergy  who  held  by  military  tenure  and  who  paid  carucage 
held  431  fees  and  paid  3,340m  of  carucage.     They  would  have  paid 
862m  of  scutage. 

197  Pat.  Rolls,  I,  453,  455,  456;  Rot.  Litt.  Glaus.,  II,  4a. 

198  "Et  in  neccessariis  expensis  et  stipendiis  militum,  servientium, 
ingeniatorum  et  aliorum  operariorum,  petrariarum  et  mangellorum 
et   aliorum   neccessariorum   in   obsidione   castri   de   Bedeford'   M   et 
CCC  et  xi  li.  et  xviii  sol.  et  ii  den.  sicut  continetur  ibidem  per  partes" 
(Exch.,  L.  T.  R.,  Foreign  Accounts,  John  and  Henry  III,  no.   1, 
m.  4). 

199  Matthew  Paris,  VI,  66-67;  Cogg.,  p.  208;  Dunst.,  p.  86. 

200  ibid.;  Wend.,  IV,  94. 

159 


STUDIES  IN  TAXATION 

French  they  realized  that  men  and  money  were  necessary 
or  the  English  possessions  would  be  permanently  lost.203 
The  question  was  again  discussed  by  the  magnates  who 
came  to  Westminster  to  celebrate  the  Christmas  festival. 
A  great  council  of  the  tenants  in  chief  was  summoned  to 
meet  on  February  2.  Hubert  de  Burgh  proposed  either 
at  Christmas,  or  in  February,  that  an  aid  of  a  fifteenth 
of  personal  property  should  be  given  to  carry  on  opera- 
tions in  southern  France.  After  deliberation,  the  mag- 
nates agreed  to  the  tax  on  condition  that  the  charters 
were  confirmed.202 

There  was  no  difference  in  principle  between  the  council 
of  Christmas  and  that  of  February.  Both  were  composed 
of  the  tenants  in  chief,  but  that  of  February  probably  had 
a  fuller  attendance,  to  secure  which  the  council  was  doubt- 
less called  at  that  time.  Those  present  were  the  arch- 
bishops, bishops,  abbots,  priors,  earls,  and  barons,  and 
the  term  barones  may  include  also  the  lesser  tenants,  the 
knights,  who,  theoretically,  would  have  to  give  their 
consent  to  any  aid.203 

201  Shirley,  I,  236. 

202  cy.  Ramsay,  Dawn  of  the  Constitution,  p.  39;  Stubbs,  Const. 
Hist.,  II  (3rd  ed),  38,  says  that  the  grant  was  made  at  the  Christmas 
meeting;  in  the  Select  Charters,  p.  353,  he  puts  it  at  the  February 
meeting.     Wendover,  IV,  99-100,  says  it  was  done  at  the  Christmas 
meeting;  Walter  of  Coventry,  II,  256,  gives  the  date  as  February  2, 
which  seems  to  be  correct,  for  the  dates  of  the  reissue  of  the  charters 
(February  11)  and  of  the  writ  of  collection  (February  15)  point  to 
the  February  meeting  (Pat.  Rolls,  I,  560;  Select  Charters,  p.  354). 
Dunstable  mentions  the  grant,  but  does  not  give  the  date  of  the 
meeting. 

203  The  chroniclers  do  not  mention  the  knights  specifically  as  mak- 
ing the  grant,  but  include  them  in  describing  those  who  pay  the  tax; 
"archiepiscopus  et  concio  tota  episcoporum,  comitum,  baronum,  abba- 
turn,  priorum,"  were  those  present  (Wend.,  IV,  100) ;  "archiepiscopi, 
episcopi,  comites,  barones,  et  viri  religiosi"    (Dunst.,  p.  93) ;  "con- 
vocantur  .  .  .  proceres  Anglise  .  .  .  concessa  est  domino  regi  a  comi- 
tibus  et  baronibus  et  clero  et  populo  ibidem  praesentibus  .  .  .  de  com- 
muni  assensu";  notice  who  have  to  pay  it;  "episcopi,  abbates,  priores, 

160 


UNDER  JOHN  AND  HENRY  III 

There  was  a  certain  degree  of  corporate  action  by  the 
members  of  the  council  in  making  this  grant,  as  is  evident 
from  the  circumstances.  A  bargain  was  made  between 
the  king  on  the  one  hand  and  the  magnates  on  the  other; 
the  former  promised  to  confirm  the  charter;  the  latter 
granted  a  fifteenth.  The  majority  of  all  classes  paid  at 
this  fixed  rate,  even  of  the  clergy;  and  those  of  the 
latter  who  compounded  in  a  lump  sum  seem  to  have  done 
so  by  special  favor,  the  government  asserting  that  they 
were  subject  to  the  levy.  Their  fine  was  said  to  be  a  fine 
for  the  fifteenth.204  When  some  laymen  refused  to  pay 
the  tax,  the  government  took  action  against  them  as 
though  the  tax  were  exigible  from  them  according  to  the 
law,  and  distrained  them  to  compel  payment.205  All  this 
looks  like  concerted  action.206  It  is  probable  that  each 
magnate  felt  that  he  individually  made  the  grant  at  this 
uniform  rate  and  that  the  decision  of  the  other  magnates 
bound  him  to  nothing.  The  letters  patent  to  the  bishop 

comites,  barones,  et  milites,  universique  alii  et  singuli  etc."  Here  the 
knights  appear,  though  no  mention  of  them  was  made  in  the  accounts 
of  the  council  (Cov.,  II,  256,  257).  The  Waverley  Annals  state  that 
the  grant  was  made  by  the  "archiepiscopi,  episcopi,  abbates,  priores, 
comites,  barones,  milites  et  homines  libere  tenentes  de  regno,"  but 
this  is  evidently  a  description  of  the  taxpayers  (Wav.,  p.  300).  The 
reissue  of  the  charters  has  two  descriptions.  The  king  grants  the 
liberties  to  the  "archiepiscopis,  episcopis,  abbatibus,  prioribus,  comi- 
tibus,  baronibus  et  omnibus  de  regno  nostro";  in  return,  the  fifteenth 
is  granted  by  the  "archiepiscopi,  episcopi,  abbates,  priores,  comites, 
barones,  milites,  libere  tenentes  et  omnes  de  regno  nostro"  (Select 
Charters,  pp.  353-354) ;  the  classes  in  the  first  description  may  be 
those  present;  the  second  description  is  a  list  of  the  taxpayers. 

204  See  below,  p.  163. 

205  See  below,  p.  166. 

20G  The  mere  fact  that  men  paid  at  a  uniform  rate  is  no  evidence 
of  concerted  action.  There  is  no  evidence  that  there  was  any  cor- 
porate decision  by  the  tenants  in  the  case  of  the  thirteenth  in  1207; 
the  king  fixed  the  levy.  But  taken  in  connection  with  the  discussion 
of  this  tax  in  1225  and  with  the  fact  that  there  was  a  bargain,  it 
shows  united  action. 

161 


STUDIES  IN  TAXATION 

of  Durham  express  this  feeling.  The  bishop  had  not  been 
present  at  the  council  in  February.207  The  fifteenth  was 
however  paid  in  his  diocese  and  the  king  referred  to  it  as 
a  grant  made  by  the  bishop's  liberality. 20f  The  same 
feeling  is  expressed  in  the  instructions  concerning  pay- 
ment by  crusaders.  The  grant  in  the  council  had  not 
altered  their  privilege  to  be  exempt  from  contribution. 
But  the  king  did  not  propose  to  allow  them  to  escape. 
Some  magnates  had  already  agreed  to  pay,209  and  those 
who  refused  were  to  be  coerced  by  the  threat  that  other- 
wise they  would  be  denied  the  liberties  granted  by  the 
king,210  an  expression  of  the  belief  that  the  king  granted 
certain  liberties  to  all  the  men  of  his  kingdom  who  paid 
him  a  certain  sum  in  the  form  of  a  series  of  individual 
grants.  When  the  chroniclers  describe  the  tax  as  granted 
by  every  one  in  the  kingdom  as  though  each  had  been 
present  at  the  council,  they  express  the  same  belief.  Even 
so,  there  can  be  hardly  a  doubt  that  there  was  united 
action  by  the  great  council. 

The  following  classes  paid  the  tax : 

1.  All  men  by  whatever  tenure  they  held  on  the  fees 
of  lay  tenants  in  chief.211 

2.  The  men   on   the   royal  demesne,   the   cities,   and 
boroughs.212 

3.  The  clerical  tenants  in  chief   (not  including  the 
churches),  though  there  were  special  arrangements  con- 
cerning the  assessment.     They  did  not  compound  in  lump 
sums,   but   the   property   of   all   their   tenants,    freemen, 
villeins,  and  men  on  their  demesnes,  as  well  as  that  of 

207  He  does  not  witness  the  reissue  of  the  charter. 

zos  "ex  mero  liberalitatis  vestrae  dono"  (Rot.  Lift.  Claut.,  II,  75b). 

209  "magnatibus  qui  huic  quintaedecimae  dande  se  sponte  submise- 
runt"  (Pat.  Rolls,  I,  572). 

210  Ibid. 

211  Select  Charters,  p.  356;  the  writ  mentions  villeins. 

212  Rot.  Litt.  Glaus.,  II,  26a,  42b,  44b,  45b,  75b;  Wend.,  IV,  138. 

162 


UNDER  JOHN  AND  HENRY  III 

those  holding  by  military  tenure,  was  assessed  and  taxed 
as  prescribed  by  the  great  council.213 

4.  Religious  houses  which  did  not  hold  by  military 
tenure.214 

5.  Merchants,  especially  mentioned  for  assessment.216 
There    were    some,    however,    among    whom    were    the 

Cistercians  and  Premonstratensians216  who  did  not  pay 
on  the  assessed  value  of  their  property,  but  fined  for  it 
instead.  This  fine  was  called  a  fine  for  the  fifteenth.  The 
Cistercians  compounded  in  some  way,  both  for  the  revenues 
of  their  churches  and  for  their  lands.217  According  to 
one  writer,  they  paid  a  lump  sum  of  2,000  marks  ;218  and 
we  know  that  in  June,  1226,  they  paid  the  king  1,000 
marks.219  The  Templars  paid  500  marks.220  The 
Hospitallers  were  exempt,  but  later  paid  a  sixteenth  on 
their  benefices.221 

213  "de  dominicis  et  villanis  propriis  et  burgensibus  ipsius  episcopi 
(Norwicensis)  et  aliis  liberis  hominibus  de  feodo  suo  qui  non  tenent 
per  servicium  militate"  (Pat.  Rolls,  I,  571);  ibid.,  572;  Rot.  Litt. 
Claus.,  II,  41a,  71a,  99a,  148b;  Madox,  II,  291,  n.  e\  Select  Charters, 
p.  357.  This  statement  does  not  include  certain  religious  orders,  for 
which,  see  below. 

21*  "Mandatum  est  eisdem  justiciariis  quod  dominus  rex  vult  quod 
R.  Sarresburiensis  episcopus  assideat  et  colligat  quintamdecimam 
de  .  .  .  mobilibus  abbatum,  priorum  et  aliorum  virorum  religiosorum 
et  hominum  suorum  qui  non  tenent  per  servicium  militare"  (Pat. 
Rolls,  I,  525,  566)  ;  Rot.  Litt.  Claus.,  II,  40b,  71a. 

2i3  Select  Charters,  above;  Cov.,  II,  257. 

216  Cov.,  II,  257. 

217  Rot.  Litt.  Claus.,  II,  177a. 

218  Wav.,  p.  300. 

219  Pat.  Rolls,  II,  40. 

220  "pro  quintadecima  sua,  quam  nobis  debuerunt  pro  se  et  homini- 
bus suis  cubantibus  et  levantibus  in  terris  praedictorum  magistri  et 
fratrum,  et  pro  omnibus  rebus  suis  propriis  et  hominum  suorum"; 
"de  praedicta  quintadecima  per  praedictum  finem  sint  quieti"   (ibid., 
II,  17). 

221  Rot.  Litt.  Claus.,  II,  71b,  180a.    No  tax  was  to  be  levied  on  the 
property  of  those  deceased  before  the  day  when  the  fifteenth  was 
granted  (ibid.,  27a).     In  November,  1224,  a  tallage  had  been  levied 

163 


STUDIES  IN  TAXATION 

The  taxable  goods  were  not  described  but  a  list  of 
exempted  property  was  made  out  with  care.  The  inten- 
tion was  not  to  tax  ornaments  or  property  used  for  earn- 
ing one's  living.  For  churchmen  and  freemen  who  were 
not  merchants,  the  following  goods  were  exempt:  books, 
church  ornaments,  war  and  draft  horses,  arms,  jewels, 
vases,  supplies  of  castles ;  for  merchants,  their  arms, 
riding  horses,  household  goods,  and  provisions  for  their 
own  consumption;  for  villeins,  their  arms,  tools,  food, 
and  farm  products  which  were  not  for  sale.222  The 
necessity  for  a  careful  statement  of  the  taxable  property 
was  shown  when  disputes  arose  over  the  assessment  of 
boats  and  their  equipment,  but  in  accordance  with  the 
principle  that  the  tools  of  one's  trade  were  not  to  be 
taxed,  this  property  was  exempted.223  The  tax  was  to  be 
paid  half  in  June  and  half  at  Michaelmas,  1225.224  Part 
of  it  was  still  due  in  December,  1226.225 

The  machinery  of  the  assessment  and  collection  of  this 
tax  follows.226  The  king  appointed  justices  in  each 
county ;  the  number  varied  from  three  in  some  counties  to 
nine  in  Norfolk  and  Suffolk.227  The  sheriff  summoned  the 
county  court  to  meet  them  on  a  certain  day  in  March  fixed 
in  the  writ.  Knights  were  chosen  on  that  day  from  each 

on  the  Jews  (Pat.  Rolls,  I,  496);  Rot.  Litt.  Glaus.,  II,  22a;  it 
amounted,  according  to  the  Waverley  Annals,  to  5,000  marks  (Wav., 
p.  300) ;  in  the  Close  Roll,  there  is  a  reference  to  a  tallage  on  the 
Jews  of  4,000  marks  (Rot.  Litt.  Claus.,  II,  142a,  October,  1226);  in 
1233,  there  is  a  reference  to  two  old  tallages  on  the  Jews  of  6,000 
marks  and  8,000  marks  (Cal.  Pat.  Rolls,  I,  13) ;  also,  in  Shirley,  I, 
392,  and  Close  Rolls,  I,  580. 

222  Select  Charters,  p.  355. 

223  Rot.  Litt.  Claus.,  II,  29b,  91a. 

224  Select  Charters,  p.  356;  Wend.,  IV,  104.     It  was  not  all  paid 
at  this  time.    Orders  were  issued  to  render  accounts  in  January  and 
June,  1226  (Madox,  II,  291,  n.  /;  Rot.  Litt.  Claus.,  II,  152a). 

225  R0t.  Litt.  Claus.,  II,  146a. 

226  Select  Charters,  pp.  355-357. 

227  pat.  Rolls,  I,  511,  560-567;  Rot.  Litt.  Claus.,  II,  146,  147. 

164 


UNDER  JOHN  AND  HENRY  III 

hundred,  usually  four  in  number,  but  there  might  be  more 
or  fewer,  according  to  the  size  of  the  hundred.  These 
elected  knights  did  not  serve  in  their  own  hundred.  Both 
the  justices  and  the  knights  swore  in  the  presence  of  the 
county  court  to  perform  their  duties  faithfully.  The 
assessment  was  then  made.  The  justices  sometimes  per- 
sonally assessed  the  tax  in  part  of  the  county  while  the 
knights  did  the  work  in  the  rest.  The  justices  were 
ordered  to  reserve  some  parts  of  the  county  to  assess  "in 
propriis  personis"  when  there  was  need.  Then  in  case 
of  a  dispute  over  the  value  sworn  to  by  any  taxpayer, 
the  writ  says,  "milites  ipsi  .  .  .  veritatem  inquirant," 
as  if  the  justices  had  not  been  present.  Further,  the 
justices  in  Surrey  received  a  special  order  to  perform 
the  work  in  that  county  in  person  because  it  contained 
few  hundreds.225  Whether  any  knights  were  elected  there 
or  not  is  uncertain.  These  entries  show  that  the  knights 
worked  independently  of  the  justices,  whose  business  it 
was  to  have  general  supervision  and  to  receive  and  guard 
the  money  when  collected.  Evidently  the  knights  were 
divided  into  groups,  else  the  regulation  concerning  a 
larger  or  smaller  number  according  to  the  size  of  the 
hundred  had  no  point  to  it.  They  then  met  the  men  of 
each  vill,  and  at  the  meeting  the  bailiffs  of  earls  and 
barons  swore  to  the  number,  quantity,  and  value  of  their 
lord's  moveables ;  and  other  men  made  the  same  oath  as 
to  their  own  goods  and  the  goods  of  two  of  their  neighbors. 
Disputes  were  settled  by  a  jury.  A  roll  of  each  vill  was 
drawn  up  in  duplicate,  one  copy  being  retained  by  the 
knights  and  the  other  delivered  to  the  justices.  The 
money  was  collected  in  each  vill  by  the  reeve  and  four 
men,  who  paid  it  to  the  knights  and  they  in  turn  to  the 
justices.  It  was  deposited  temporarily  in  a  church,  abbey, 
or  priory,  under  the  seal  of  both  knights  and  justices. 
228  pat.  Rolls,  I,  511. 

165 


STUDIES  IN  TAXATION 

In  this  scheme,  the  subordinate  position  of  the  sheriff 
should  be  noted.  He  was  to  cooperate  with  the  justices; 
he  summoned  the  court  to  meet  them;  probably  he  sum- 
moned the  men  of  the  vill  to  meet  the  knights;  he  aided 
by  distraint;  he  probably  furnished  transportation  for 
the  money  collected;  he  distrained  the  justices  to  render 
their  account,229  but  the  responsibility  for  the  assessment 
and  collection  was  taken  entirely  out  of  his  hands.  The 
assessment  was  searching,  at  least  among  the  lower 
classes.  Complaints  arose  among  the  poor,  and  the  jus- 
tices were  finally  ordered  to  spare  them.230  The  religious 
orders,  as  we  have  already  seen,  were  opposed  to  the  tax, 
and  the  government  was  willing  to  make  special  arrange- 
ments with  them.  Ordinary  laymen  met  with  no  such 
consideration  and  were  distrained  if  they  refused  to  pay.231 
We  may  notice  some  variations  in  the  scheme  of  assess- 
ment. The  clergy  were  in  the  beginning  allowed  to  assess 
their  demesnes  by  their  own  bailiffs.235  Later  this  privi- 
lege was  extended  to  include  all  their  freemen  except  those 
who  held  by  military  service.233  A  churchman  might  be 
allowed  to  assess  his  knights  also,  one  of  the  king's  justices 
taking  part  in  the  work.234  According  to  the  original 
plan,  the  bishop  was  to  have  charge  of  levying  the  tax 
on  the  property  of  religious  bodies  in  his  diocese.235  The 
king  appointed  a  clerk  to  cooperate  with  the  bishop's 
officials.236  But  the  abbots  and  priors  often,  perhaps 

229/6,-d.,  I,  564-565;  Rot.  Litt.  Claut.,  II,  73-75,  146,  152a. 
2so  Pat.  Rolls,  I,  572. 

231  Rot.  Litt.  Claus.,  II,  26a,  40b,  66a;  if  a  man  had  had  property 
and  had  disposed  of  it  before  the  fifteenth  was  granted,  he  might 
have  to  prove  that  fact  in  order  to  avoid  being  taxed  or  being  fined 
(ibid.,  62a). 

232  Select  Charters,  above. 

233  pat.  Rolls,  I,  572. 

234  Ibid.,  571. 

235  ibid.,  546;  Rot.  Litt.  Glaus.,  II,  71a,  99a. 

236  Pat.  Rolls,  I,  571. 

166 


UNDER  JOHN  AND  HENRY  III 

generally,  sought  and  obtained  from  the  king  permission 
to  make  the  assessment  by  their  own  bailiffs  with  the  help 
of  an  official  of  the  bishop  or  a  king's  clerk.237  The  par- 
ticulars of  the  assessment  on  the  lands  of  the  clergy  were 
entered  on  a  roll.238 

The  great  council  provided  that  the  money  was  to  be 
kept  in  the  castles  of  Devizes  and  Winchester  in  the  care 
of  the  bishops  of  Bath  and  Salisbury.239  To  these  prel- 
ates the  collectors  rendered  their  accounts240  and  through 
them  the  money  was  paid  out.241  The  provision  concern- 
ing the  care  of  the  receipts  suggests  that  there  was  an 
attempt  by  the  barons  to  control  the  expenditure  of  the 
tax,  and  if  so,  then  we  have  another  evidence  of  the  cor- 

237  ibid.,  I,  525,  570,  572;  II,  18;  Rot.  Litt.  Glaus.,  II,  21b,  29b,  71a. 
23SR0t.  Litt.  Claw.,  II,  148b;  Pat.  Rolls,  II,  18. 

239  "provisum  est  de  consilio  fidelium  nostrorum  nobis  apud  Lond' 
nuper  assistencium   quod  medietas   tocius   quintedecime  nostre   tarn 
clericorum    quam   laicorum    reponatur    salvo    custodienda   in   castro 
nostro  Wynton'  in  custodia  venerabilis  patris  R.  Sarr'  episcopi  et 
alia  medietas  in  castro  nostro  Dyvis'  in  custodia  vestra"  (i.e.  of  J., 
bishop  of  Bath)  (Rot.  Litt.  Glaus.,  II,  73b)  ;  ibid.,  64b,  74,  75,  76a,81a. 
Pat.  Rolls,  II,  104. 

240  76 id. ;  also,  148b,  152a.     Much  of  the  money  was  paid  at  the    v 
New  Temple  at  London  (ibid.,  pp.  75,  76).     In  connection  with  this 
description  of  the  arrangements  for  the  care  of  the  receipts  from  the 
fifteenth  should  be  noticed  the  charge  against  Hubert  de  Burgh  in 
1239  and  his  reply.    He  was  summoned  to  account  for  the  fifteenth, 
"quae  per  commune  consilium  totius  regni  custodiri  et  haberi  debuit 

in  deposito;  et  ita  in  deposito,  quod  nihil  inde  caperetur  usque  ad 
aetatem  domini  regis,  nisi  per  visum  sex  episcoporum  et  sex  comitum 
ad  hoc  specialiter  attornatorum,  et  hoc  non  nisi  ad  defensionem 
regni";  "ad  hoc  (Hubert)  respondit,  quod  domini  Sarisberiensis  et 
Bathoniensis  episcopi  illam  pecuniam  receperunt  per  commune  con- 
silium regni,  et  inde  reddiderunt  compotum  suum,  et  inde  quieti 
sunt  per  literas  domini  regis"  (Matthew  Paris,  VI,  65-66).  The 
justiciar's  statement  describes  the  way  in  which  the  money  was 
actually  handled.  It  is,  however,  possible  that  the  council  proposed 
to  have  a  committee  of  six  bishops  and  six  barons  supervise  the 
expenditure  of  the  money;  perhaps  they  viewed  the  accounts  of  the 
two  prelates.  The  account  of  the  levy  is  not  in  the  Pipe  Roll. 
2*1  Pat.  Rolls,  I,  524-545;  II,  1-56. 

167 


STUDIES  IN  TAXATION 

porate  action  of  the  great  council.  The  money  was 
regarded  as  a  special  fund  for  the  expenses  of  the  war 
and  the  administration  of  Gascony.  When  the  justiciar 
wished  to  use  any  of  it  for  governmental  purposes  in 
England,  he  borrowed  from  the  fund  with  the  promise 
to  repay.245  That  there  was  difficulty  in  binding  the  king 
by  such  an  arrangement  is  shown  when  the  latter  in 
acknowledging  one  of  these  loans  said  that  if  he  djd  not 
repay  the  money,  he  would  guarantee  immunity  to  the 
bishops  who  were  the  guardians  of  the  treasure.243 

In  March,  1225,  Richard,  the  king's  brother,  was  sent 
to  Gascony  as  viceroy ;  he  was  accompanied  by  his  uncle, 
the  veteran  earl  of  Salisbury,  and  a  small  force  of 
knights.244  Reinforcements  were  sent  over  in  1225  and 
1226.24E  No  general  summons  to  the  host  seems  to  have 
been  issued,  so  that  these  forces  were  probably  mercena- 
ries. It  is  interesting  to  notice  the  amount  of  money 
expended  in  this  expedition.  From  June  15,  1225,  to 
August,  1226,  nearly  54,000  marks  were  either  sent  to 

242  The  king  borrows  £1,800  which  is  repaid  in  October  (Pat. 
Rolls,  I,  547,  548;  Rot.  Litt.  Clans.,  II,  64b)  ;  ibid.,  66a;  "de  denariis 
quintedecime  .  .  .  centum  libras  de  prestito"  (Pat.  Rolls,  II,  42) ; 
also  ibid.,  pp.  46,  48,  90;  these  may  not  have  been  all  repaid.  Part 
of  the  money  was  used  for  other  purposes  with  no  such  reservation 
(ibid.,  pp.  26,  31,  63,  88).  That  it  was  a  special  fund  is  suggested  in 
the  charge  against  Hubert  de  Burgh  (see  above,  p.  167). 

2*3  "et  si  non  reddiderimus,  volumus  quod  de  tanta  pecunia  sint 
quieti  et  eos  inde  servabimus  indempnes"  (Pat.  Rolls,  I,  547).  The 
promise  seems  to  indicate  that  the  bishops  feared  the  magnates  would 
call  them  to  account  for  such  a  disposition  of  the  money,  but  more 
probably  it  was  merely  a  safeguard  against  a  future  account  which 
they  would  have  to  render  to  the  king;  cf.  Matthew  Paris,  VI,  65-66, 
where  Hubert  states  that  "inde  (of  the  fifteenth)  reddiderunt  com- 
potum  suum,  et  inde  quieti  sunt  per  literas  domini  regis." 

24*  Seventy  knights  (Wint.,  p.  84)  ;  40  knights  (Wend.,  IV,  101) ;  77 
men  (Ramsay,  Dawn  of  the  Constitution,  p.  40,  from  Pat.  Rolls,  I, 
573-575). 

245  pat.  Rolls,  I,  539,  575,  II,  15,  16,  21,  33,  35,  36,  53,  56;  Rot. 
Litt.  Claus.,  II,  49b,  58b,  59a,  HOa,  113a,  117b,  118b,  122b,  127b. 

168 


UNDER  JOHN  AND  HENRY  III 

Richard  or  paid  to  soldiers  on  their  way  to  Gascony  or  to 
merchants  for  loans  made  to  Richard.246  Thus  a  cam- 
paign in  Gascony  was  a  heavy  expense  and  in  this  instance 
required  the  greater  part  of  the  fifteenth,  the  total  amount 
of  which  was  £57,838  13s  6d.247  Two  of  the  leaders  of 
the  expedition,  the  earl  of  Salisbury  and  Philip  de 
Albiniaco,  were  allowed  to  levy  an  aid  on  all  their  tenants 
in  October,  1225,  to  support  themselves  in  the  war.248 
Their  tenants  had  apparently  to  pay  a  double  tax. 

THE  SIXTEENTH,  1226 

The  government  did  not  venture  to  collect  the  fifteenth 
from  the  beneficed  clergy  on  the  authority  of  a  grant  by 
the  great  council.  One  annalist  says  that  the  secular 
clergy  would  not  pay  this  tax  and  so  the  king  asked  the 
pope  for  letters  to  the  clergy,  urging  them  to  make  a 
grant.245  However  that  may  be,  the  pope  wrote  on 
February  3,  1225,  asking  that  this  be  done250  and  his 
letter  may  have  been  in  answer  to  one  of  the  king,  written 
after  Christmas,  1224,  when,  it  may  be,  the  clergy  refused 
the  grant.  But  no  immediate  use  was  made  of  the  pope's 
letter  as  there  is  no  record  of  an  attempt  to  obtain  a 
contribution  from  the  secular  clergy  till  May,  1226,  when 
this  letter  with  one  from  the  king  was  sent  out  by  arch- 
bishop Stephen,  together  with  two  letters  of  his  own.251 

246  Pat.  Rolls,  I,  524-545;  II,  1-56,  passim. 

247  Red  Book,  III,   1064;   "summa   fuit  circiter  quater  viginti  et 
novem    inilia    marcarum"    (Matthew    Paris,    VI,    66);    one    account, 
probably  incomplete,  is  as   follows:  £22,589  6s  7d  received  by  the 
bishop  of  Salisbury;  £15,343  18s  8i£d  by  the  bishop  of  Bath  (Vincent, 
Lancashire  Lay  Subsidies,  p.  16). 

2«  Pat.  Rolls,  I,  550,  554. 

249  Dunst.,  p.  93. 

250  Pat.  Rolls,  I,  585;  Reg.  8.  Osm.,  II,  57;  Wilkins,  Concilia,  I,  603; 
this  letter  is  given  in  Coventry,  II,  256,  where  the  chronicler  repre- 
sents that  it  was  used  at  the  council  which  granted  the  fifteenth. 

251  One  draft  of  the  king's  letter  is  given  in  Rot.  Litt.  Glaus.,  II, 

169 


STUDIES  IN  TAXATION 

The  archbishop  urged  that  a  grant  be  made,  suggesting 
a  twelfth,  or  a  fourteenth.  The  king  promised  that  the 
tax  should  not  form  a  precedent,  and,  as  evidence  of  his 
good  faith  in  the  matter,  declared  that  a  tenth  of  the 
hay  and  of  the  product  of  the  mills  on  his  demesne  should 
henceforth  be  given  to  the  churches  and  that  he  would 
try  to  persuade  the  magnates  to  make  a  similar  grant. 

The  records  of  Salisbury  church  show  that  there  was 
much  discussion  over  this  request.  All  the  canons  were 
summoned  and  four  main  points  were  considered: 
whether  they  should  make  any  grant;  if  so,  how  much; 
how  to  make  it  uniform ;  and  how  to  prevent  the  establish- 
ment of  a  precedent.  Furthermore,  it  was  suggested  that 
a  council  of  all  the  churches  be  called.  Evidently  other 
churches  had  not  made  the  grant  as  asked,  for  the  arch- 
bishop summoned  a  council  of  deans,  archdeacons,  and 
regulars  with  representatives  of  absentees,  to  meet  at 
London  in  October,  1226.  Each  church  was  to  instruct 
its  own  delegates.252 

After  deliberation  the  council  granted  a  uniform  tax 
of  a  sixteenth  of  revenues  according  to  the  valuation  of 

152b;  Wilkins,  I,  603,  620;  Register  of  8.  Osmund,  ed.  Jones,  Rolls 
Series,  II,  55-56;  a  full  account  of  this  tax  with  all  these  letters  is 
given  in  the  Reg.  S.  Osm.,  II,  55-70 ;  also  in  Wilkins,  I,  603-605,  which 
is  taken  from  the  register.  On  this  tax,  see  Ernest  Barker,  The 
Dominican  Order  and  Convocation,  pp.  48-51. 

252  The  instructions  given  by  the  church  of  Salisbury  show  that 
the  grant  would  be  so  hedged  about  by  restrictions  as  to  render  the 
king  entirely  dependent  on  the  will  of  the  churches  for  any  returns 
from  the  tax.  The  grant  was  to  be  made  "de  prebendis  et  redditibus 
et  hoc  secundum  estimationem  quae  facta  fuit  ad  subventionem  Terrae 
Sanctae  et  nullo  modo  de  mobilibus";  it  was  to  be  collected  by  the 
chapter,  not  by  the  bishop;  no  oath  was  to  be  taken;  no  sentence  of 
excommunication  issued;  "prolixos  terminos"  for  payment.  One 
question  to  be  asked  at  the  council  was  what  was  to  be  done  if 
some  canons  refused  to  do  that  to  which  the  majority  of  the  chapter 
agreed  (Reg.  S.  Osm.,  above). 

170 


UNDER  JOHN  AND  HENRY  III 

the  twentieth  in  1216. 25J  These  values  did  not  corre- 
spond to  the  true  values,  for  they  were  usually  made  in 
round  sums.254  The  tax  was  collected  in  cathedral 
churches  by  the  deans  and  the  chapter,  and  in  parochial 
churches  by  the  archdeacon  and  other  worthy  men 
appointed  by  the  bishop.  It  was  to  be  paid,  half  in 
February,  1227,  and  half  in  the  June  following.  Letters 
patent  were  issued  declaring  that  the  grant  should  not 
form  a  precedent.255  Part  of  the  tax  remained  unpaid, 
for  in  1229  the  king  wrote  to  several  bishops  complaining 
that  considerable  sums  were  still  in  arrears.  The  dean 
and  chapter  of  Lincoln  had  paid  nothing.256  Some 
churches  raised  the  tax  by  taking  an  aid  from  their 
knights  and  free  tenants.257  The  Irish  clergy  were  also 
asked  to  contribute,  but  were  very  unwilling  to  do  so  and 
may  have  escaped  entirely.255  Thus  at  last,  the  govern- 
ment adopted  the  suggestion  made  long  before  that  taxes 
be  raised  on  personal  property.  So  many  men  paid  this 
time  on  the  assessed  or  estimated  value  of  their  property 
that  it  was  the  exception  to  pay  dona. 

In  1226,  Henry  III  was  very  desirous  to  lead  in  person 
an  expedition  to  Gascony,  but  by  counsel  of  the  barons, 
he  postponed  the  invasion.255  Though  the  pope  too  had 

253  Ibid.;  Theok.,  p.  69;  Wig.,  p.  419;  Annales  Monasterii  de 
Oseneia,  ed.  Luard,  Rolls  Series,  p.  68;  a  fifteenth,  Wend.,  IV,  139; 
Pat.  Rolls,  II,  64;  Chronicon  Thomce  Wykes,  ed.  Luard,  Rolls  Series, 
p.  67. 

as*  Reg.  8.  Osm.,  II,  70-75. 

zss  Rot.  Litt.  Claus.,  II,  211b;  Pat.  Rolls,  II,  64.  The  clergy  feared 
that  the  tax  would  lead  to  others,  and  the  pope  in  his  letter  urging 
them  to  grant  this  tax  had  stated  that  it  was  not  to  be  drawn  into 
a  precedent  (Pat.  Rolls,  1,  585). 

256  Pat.  Rolls,  II,  249;  Close  Rolls,  I,  380,  381. 

257  R0t.  Litt.  Claus.,  II,  143a. 

258  pat.  Rolls,  II,  100,  101,  103,  104,  138;  Close  Rolls,  I,  383. 

259  Wend.,  IV,  126;  Rot.  Litt.  Claus.,  II,  151a;  Pat.  Rolls,  II,  44. 

171 


STUDIES  IN  TAXATION 

forbidden  it,260  the  king  did  not  give  up  his  plan.  In 
June,  1227,  he  summoned  the  tenants  in  chief  to  meet 
on  August  1  and  ordered  ships  to  gather  at  the  same 
time  for  the  invasion.281  The  truce  was  however  extended 
to  1228  and  the  summons  was  countermanded.262  For 
the  expenses  of  the  war  in  Gascony  a  tallage  was  levied 
in  1226  and  1227.263  The  assessment  was  made  in  each 
county  by  the  sheriff  acting  with  commissioners  who  were 
appointed  by  the  king.264  Many  of  the  towns  fined  with 
the  assessors  for  their  tallage  and  assessed  it  them- 
selves.285 A  peculiar  feature  of  the  levy  was  the  tallage 
of  London  which  was  assessed  per  capita.  Though  this 
was  an  ordinary  way  of  levying  a  tallage,  there  was  some- 
thing unusual  about  it,  for  the  king  issued  letters  patent 
promising  that  as  far  as  London  was  concerned  it  should 

aeo  Shirley,  I,  545-547. 

261.R0J.  Litt.  Claus.,  II,  210b,  211a;  to  meet  June  15  at  Winchester 
(Reg.  S.  Osmundi,  II,  55);  some  of  the  towns  were  to  furnish  ships 
in  lieu  of  their  tallage  (Rot.  Litt.  Claus.,  II,  174b). 

2«2  Ibid.,  II,  212a. 

263  "<Je  competent!  auxilio  nobis  faciendo  ad  hereditatem  nostram 
et  jura  nostra  perquirenda  in  partibus  transmarinis"    (Pat.  Rolls, 
II,    104) ;    "auxilium  ...  ad   opus  .  .  .  R.    comitis    Pictaviae"    (Rot. 
Litt.   Claus.,   II,   171a) ;   the   tallage  was   levied   on   London   before 
December  22,  1226   (Pat.  Rolls,  above),  but  most  of  the  orders  for 
its  collection  were  sent  out  in  January  and  February,  1227    (Rot. 
Litt.  Claus.,  II,  171a,  208b).    It  is  mentioned  in  Theok.,  p.  69,  Wend., 
IV,  138,  and  Wig.,  p.  419;  Farrer,  Lane.  Inquests,  p.  135. 

264  Rot.  Litt.  Claus.,  II,  171,  176a.    These  commissioners  were  royal 
justices;  e.g.  in  Hereford,  the  tallage  was  assessed  by  S.  de  Segrave, 
William  Fitz  Warini,  and  Ralph  Musard  (Pipe  Roll,  12  Henry  III, 
m.  2  d),  who  were  judges  (Pat.  Rolls,  II,  107).    Cf.  the  list  of  tal- 
lagers  in  Rot.  Litt.  Claus.,  II,  208,  209,  with  the  itinerant  justices 
(ibid.,  151,  213). 

265  Thus,  towns   responded    for   round   sums;    see   also  Rot.   Litt. 
Claus.,  II,  208b.    The  bishop  of  Hereford  had  excommunicated  forty 
citizens  of  Hereford  because  "in  communi  tallagio  regis  in  civitate, 
homines  suos   (of  the  bishop)   concives  et  inhabitantes  civitatem  et 
homines   canonicorum  talliaverant  et  namia  pro  tallagio   ceperant" 
(Red  Book,  III,  1010) ;  Madox,  I,  707,  n.  h,  i. 

172 


UNDER  JOHN  AND  HENRY  III 

not  form  a  precedent.266  Wendover  states  that  the  king 
compelled  the  citizens  to  pay  5,000  marks,  because  they 
had  paid  that  sum  to  Louis  when  he  left  England.267 
Probably  this  sum  was  demanded  and  refused  and  the 
king  then  took  a  tallage  per  capita.  The  amount  charged 
in  twenty-nine  counties  in  1226  and  1227  was  about  9,000 
marks.  Of  this  sum,  4,120m  5s  8d  were  charged  against 
London.  In  1227,  the  government  ordered  all  charters 
to  be  confirmed  as  the  king  was  now  declared  to  be  of 
full  age.  Towns  sometimes  paid  a  lump  sum  for  their 
tallage  and  for  confirmation  of  their  charters.  The 
amounts  do  not  appear  exorbitant,268  and  in  many  cases 
were  afterward  reduced.266 

THE  SCTJTAGE  OF  KERRY,  1228 

In  1228,  the  Welsh  attacked  the  castle  of  Montgomery, 
and  to  relieve  it  the  host  was  summoned  and  Wales 
invaded.  The  campaign  lasted  about  six  weeks  and  was 
a  failure.270  Most  of  the  great  tenants  performed  their 

266  pipe  Roll,  12  Henry  III,  m.  6;  Madox,  I,  708,  n.  n;  Pat.  Rolls, 

II,  104,  132. 

267  Wend.,  IV,  138 ;  see  above,  p.  124,  note  18.    That  this  was  not 
an   isolated    case   of   levy   per    capita   is    shown    by   the    following: 
"Homines  de  Calne  r  c  de  vi  li.  et  xix  sol.  et  ii  den.  de  tallagio  assiso 
super  ipsos  per  capita"  (Pipe  Roll,  12  Henry  III,  Wilts,  m.  2). 

268  Salop  300m  "pro  taillagio  suo  assiso  super  eos  per  Henricum  de 
Alditheleg  et  Johannem  Bonet  et  pro  habenda  carta  regis  et  con- 
firmatione  de  libertatibus  eis  concessis  per  cartam  regis  J.  et  pro 
libertatibus   per   regem   H.   eis   de   novo   concessis"    (Pipe   Roll,    11 
Henry  III,  Salop,  m.  2  d)  ;  Bedford  £100  for  tallage  and  confirma- 
tion  (ibid.,  m.  2)  ;  Northampton  £200  for  the  same   (ibid.,  m.  10)  ; 
Wendover  (IV,  139)  says  that  Northampton  paid  £1,200  "de  auxilio"; 
Hereford,  120  marks  (Pipe  Roll,  12  Henry  III,  Heref.,  m.  2  d). 

269  Newcastle   from   £200   to    £100;   Carlisle   from    126m   to   60m; 
Norwich  from  460m  to  200m  and  then  to  150m;  Stafford  from  100m 
to  50m;   Salop   from  400m  to  300m;   Winchester   from   146m   6s   to 
100m;  Scarborough  from  220m  to  150m,  etc.   (Rot.  Oriff.,  11  Henry 

III,  no.  I,  m.  5,  6)  ;  Rot.  Lift.  Glaus.,  II,  180-186. 

270  Wend.,   IV,   172-173;   Dunst.,  p.   110;  Brut  y   Tywysoglon,  ed. 

173 


STUDIES  IN  TAXATION 

service;271  the  army  also  contained  lesser  tenants  and 
rear-vassals.275  Some  tenants  performed  only  part  of 
their  service.273  The  fighting  took  place  in  the  autumn 
and  the  exchequer  had  not  sufficient  money  to  defray 
expenses.274  Immediately  after  the  king's  return,  writs 
were  issued  (October  24)  directing  a  scutage  at  two 
marks  on  the  fee  to  be  paid  on  December  7  in  most  of  the 
counties  and  in  a  few  cases  on  January  20.27: 

Owen  Jones,  p.  317.  Henry  was  at  Montgomery  from  September  3 
to  some  date  between  October  14  and  28  (Close  Rolls,  I,  78-129). 

271  Most  of  them  receive  writs  of  quittance. 

272  Scutage  Rolls,  no.  2,  m.  4,  5 ;  see  also  below. 

2"  Close  Rolls,  I,  118;  Chron.  Petrob.,  p.  10;  Wykes,  p.  70. 

Knights 
Ser-    fur- 
vice  nished 

Walter  de  Ashley  10      1  Quit  in  Dors,  and  Somers.,  Pipe 

Roll,  13  Henry  III. 

John  de  Villiers  1%  1  Quit,  Bucks  and  Bedf. 

John  de  Beauchamp       3%   1  Quit,  Bucks  and  Bedf. 

Henry  Fitz  Richard        7      2  serg.    Quit,  Dors,  and  Som. 
Hugh  Giffard  2^  1  serg.    "debet"  5m,  Heref. 

Michael  de  Columbariis  1      1  Quit,  Hants. 

William  de  Ponte  Arche  1       1  Quit,  Hants. 

Roger  Fitz  Payn  15      1  Quit,  Dors,  and  Som. 

Robert  de  Amenevill      1       1  Quit,  Glouc. 

Henry  de  Oilli  32%  6  serg.    Quit,  Oxford 

(Scutage  Rolls,  above.) 

'74  Sheriffs  were  to  forward  receipts  directly  to  the  army  instead 
of  to  the  exchequer  (Close  Rolls,  I,  79-81). 

275  Close  Rolls,  I,  118.    This  is  the  account: 

M  s  d 

Clerical   tenants 1404  7  0 

Seventy-one  lay  tenants  (each  5  or  more  fees)  3483  9  10 

Other  lay  tenants  (each  fewer  than  5  fees,  etc.)     1011  5  8 

Total 5899  9  2 

Paid,  13  and  14  Henry  III      .         .         ...     2700  4  5 
Fees  taxed,  fewer  than  3000. 

The  71  tenants  include  as  one  tenant  each  the  honors  of  Eye,  Chokes, 
and  Richard  de  Reimes;  also  12  tenants  holding  5  or  more  fees  each 
on  great  honors  in  hand  such  as  Boulogne,  Peverel,  etc.  In  the  sum 
charged  against  the  lesser  tenants  (each  fewer  than  5  fees,  etc.) 

174 


UNDER  JOHN  AND  HENRY  III 

This  scutage  was  paid  by  tenants  who  had  failed  to 
answer  the  summons.  A  rear-vassal  who  was  in  the  army 
received  a  writ  of  quittance  and  his  lord  was  exempt  that 
amount.276  In  some  cases  the  tenant  in  chief  who  had 
performed  only  part  of  his  service  paid  no  scutage  at 
all.277  A  tenant  who  did  not  pay  might  be  disseized  or 
distrained.278  Yet  it  was  difficult  to  compel  prompt  pay- 
ment. William  de  Ferrar  held  one  fee  of  the  bishop  of 
Bath  which  William  Marshal  gave  him  with  his  wife  in 
free  marriage.  The  bishop  tried  to  collect  scutage  from 
it,  but  the  tenant  refused  to  pay  and  was  then  distrained 
by  the  sheriff.  He  claimed  that  William  Marshal  ought 
to  acquit  him.  The  plea  was  not  allowed  because  the 
sub-tenant  ought  to  have  proceeded  against  the  donor 
and  had  not  done  so,  though  he  had  had  sufficient  time, 
over  two  years.  So  he  was  ordered  to  pay  the  scutage, 
and  should  he  refuse  the  sheriff  was  to  sell  the  goods  which 
he  was  holding  and  pay  the  proceeds  to  the  bishop.  This 
case  was  not  settled  till  1231.27£  William  de  Vesey  served 
in  the  army  and  was  granted  his  scutage.  The  writ  which 
the  sheriff  received  stated  that  it  was  the  scutage  of 
Montgomery  instead  of  Kerry.  Consequently,  the  latter 

are  included  556m  charged  against  honors  in  hand,  leaving  about 
450m  against  tenants  in  chief,  or  225  fees.  Of  the  sum  charged 
against  the  clergy  and  the  lesser  lay  tenants,  about  two-thirds  were 
paid  in  1229  and  1230;  of  that  charged  against  those  laymen  holding 
five  or  more  fees,  about  one-third.  Some  of  the  great  tenants  who 
are  charged  and  who  pay  are  women:  the  countesses  of  Winchester, 
Oxford,  and  Salisbury.  Some  of  the  holdings  in  the  list  of  five  or 
more  fees  are  probably  in  hand,  but  not  all:  Nigel  de  Mowbray  and 
the  earl  of  Warwick  are  both  charged  with  scutage  and  both  pay 
part  of  it. 

276  Close  Rolls,  I,  83,  84,  85,  86,  121,  321. 

ZTT  See  above,  note  273. 

278  "Preceptum  est  vicecomiti  quod  diss'  heredes  Mathei  de  Tor- 
ington'  et  uxorem  ejusdem  M.  pro  scutagio  de  Kery"  (Exch.,  K.  R., 
Mem.  Roll,  no.  10,  m.  4). 

279  Close  Rolls,  I,  512. 

175 


STUDIES  IN  TAXATION 

scutage  was  demanded  of  William.  On  his  refusal  to  pay 
he  was  distrained  and  he  then  secured  the  correction  of 
the  writ.  Yet  the  sheriff  did  not  resort  to  these  extreme 
measures  till  1230,  two  years  after  the  campaign.28'  In 
1239,  two  tenants  were  pardoned  their  scutages  for  this 
expedition.281  The  scutage  was  ultimately  paid  by  the 
rear-vassals.  The  king  granted  tenants  the  right  to  col- 
lect it  from  their  men,  the  sheriff  aiding  with  distraint, 
if  necessary.282  The  existence  of  such  orders  shows  that 
the  tenant  in  chief  could  not  make  such  a  collection  with- 
out the  king's  consent.  The  same  orders  and  the  delays 
in  payment  show  that  the  exchequer  did  not  pass  over 
the  heads  of  the  tenants  in  chief  and  levy  the  scutage  on 
the  sub-tenants.  The  scutage  did  not  stop  with  the 
immediate  vassal  of  the  tenant  in  chief.283 

THE  PAPAL  TENTH,  1229 

This  year  occurred  another  case  of  papal  taxation  to 
raise  money  to  carry  on  war  against  the  emperor, 
Frederick  II.  The  demand  was  presented  by  the  papal 
nuncio,  Stephen,  in  a  great  council,  composed  of  all 
the  tenants  in  chief,  the  rectors  of  churches,  and  the 

280  Close  Rolls,  I,  375. 

281  Excerpta,  I,  322. 

282  Close  Rolls,  I,  118;  for  Matilda,  wife  of  Richard  de  Redvers 
(Excerpta,  I,  178) ;  in  the  case  of  Oliver  de  Albiniaco,  a  rear-vassal, 
whose  goods  had  been  seized  "et  averia  sua  ea  occasione  capta  sine 
dilatione  deliberari  faciat"  (Close  Rolls,  III,  439) ;  Scutage  Rolls,  no. 
2.    "Dominus  rex  concessit  Willelmo  Lungesp'  quod  per  manum  suam 
colligi  faceret  scutagium  suum  de  feodis  militum  que  de  rege  tenet 
in  capite  de  hereditate  uxoris,  scilicet  de  scuto  ii  marc,  pro  exercitu 
de  Kery  ad  respondendum  inde  per  manum  suam  ad  scaccarium  .  .  . 
et  mandatum  est  vicecomiti  Oxon'  quod  scutagium  illud  sic  colligi 
permittat  et  sit  in  auxilium  eidem  W.  ad  distringendum  milites  et 
libere  tenentes  suos  in  balliva  sua  ad  scutagium  illud  ei  reddendum" 
(Fine  Roll,  13  Henry  III,  m.  13) ;  there  are  other  cases  on  m.  12,  13. 

283  Distraint  of  the  tenants  of  Geoffrey  de  Dunstanvill,'  a  rear- 


UNDER  JOHN  AND  HENRY  III 

Templars  and  the  Hospitallers.  The  laity  refused  to 
make  the  grant,  but  the  clergy  yielded.  Wendover  says 
that  the  king  had  promised  the  pope  a  tenth  of  the  move- 
ables  of  all  in  the  realm  in  return  for  the  cassation  of 
the  election  of  Walter  de  Eynesham  as  archbishop  of 
Canterbury,  and  that  for  this  reason  he  did  not  oppose 
the  pope's  demand.  The  earl  of  Chester  refused  to  allow 
his  clergy  to  be  taxed  and  thus  they  escaped.284 

This  tax  should  be  noticed,  not  only  as  another  case 
of  the  taxation  of  the  clergy,  but  also  as  an  attempt  to 
base  the  tax  on  property.  The  pope  sought  to  levy  it 
on  the  actual  value  of  the  property  and  revenues.285  The 
papal  nuncio  had  general  charge  of  the  assessment  and 
collection  and  he  appointed  representatives  for  that  pur- 
pose in  the  different  dioceses.  In  each  cathedral  church 
and  monastery,  some  of  the  canons  or  monks  made  the 
assessment  under  oath.286  As  the  assessment  would  take 
some  time  and  there  was  need  of  the  money  at  once,  the 
clergy  had  to  make  immediate  advances  of  money  which 

vassal  (Close  Rolls,  I,  321);  pardon  of  scutage  to  Philip  de  Albin' 
who  held  of  Oliva  who  held  of  the  honor  of  Brittany  (ibid.,  I,  85). 

284  Wend.,  IV,   184,  200-203;  Dunst.,  pp.   114,  166;   Osney,  p.  70; 
Gerv.  Cant.,  Continuation,  II,  128;  Theok.,  p.  73;  Wykes,  p.  70;  Wig., 
pp.  421,  422;  Burton,  pp.  245,  364-365;   Wint.,  p.  85;   Wav.,  p.  305; 
Chron.  Petrob.,  p.  10. 

285  "decimam  omnium  bonorum"    (Theok.,  p.  73);  "decimam  pro- 
ventuum   de   omnibus    terris,   redditibus,   decimis,   oblationibus,   non 
deductis  expensis"  (Dunst.,  p.  125) ;  "non  secundum  taxationem  fac- 
tam  in  vicesima,  .  .  .  sed  secundum  quod  melius  possunt,  .  .  .  omnia 
bona  et  mobilia  singulorum  taxari;  videlicet,  de  omnibus  redditibus, 
proventibus,  fructibus  carrucarum,  oblationibus,  decimis,  nutrimentis 
animalium  et  fructibus,  et  de  omnibus  obventionibus  ecclesiarum  vel 
aliarum  possessionum,  quocumque  nomine  censeantur,  non  aliquibus 
debitis    vel    expensis    aliqua    occasione    deductis"    (Wend.,    above) ; 
"A.    D.    1229,   decimata    est   universalis    ecclesia   Angliae,    et    omnia 
mobilia  et  immobilia  clericorum  et  religiosorum"    (Burton,  pp.  364- 
365,  where  also  are  given  the  details  of  the  assessment). 

286  "constitutis   procuratoribus   suis  in  singulis   comitatibus   regni" 
(Wend.,    IV,    202) ;    "et    taxationem    rerum    fecit    fieri    in    ecclesiis 

177 


STUDIES  IN  TAXATION 

were  later  credited  to  them  in  the  tenth.287  Prelates  who 
refused  to  agree  to  the  tenth,  or  to  advance  money,  were 
threatened  with  excommunication.  The  attempt  to  base 
the  tax  on  property,  the  use  of  sworn  assessors,  and  the 
excommunication  of  those  who  opposed  the  levy  caused 
great  complaint.288 

cathedralibus  et  monasteriis  per  canonicos  et  monachos  eorum 
juramento  astrictos"  (Dunst.,  p.  114). 

287  Wend.,  above;  "unde  pro  festinato  auxilio,  domus  de  Dunstaple 
solvit  viginti  marcas";  the  next  year  they  paid  42^  marks  (Dunst., 
pp.  115,  125).    After  the  assessment  was  made,  the  prior  of  Tewkes- 
bury  paid  109  marks,  November  17,  1230  (Theok.,  p.  77).    According 
to  Wendover,  some  of  the  prelates  were  compelled  to  sell  or  pawn 
the  gold  and  silver  of  the  churches  to  raise  the  money.     Matthew 
Paris  adds  that  Stephen  brought  with  him  merchants  who  lent  money 
to  the  clergy  at  ruinous  rates  (Matthew  Paris,  III,  188). 

288  it  may  be  questioned  whether  the  assessment  was  as  severe  as 
the  outcries  of  the  chroniclers  would  indicate.     The  tax  on  one  of 
the  deaneries  of  the  church  of  Salisbury  in  1226  was   100s,  which 
would  give  a  value  of  revenue  of  £80  (the  record  gives  80m  but  it 
is  probably  an  error).    A  note  gives  another  estimate  of  this  prop- 
erty which  seems  to  be  that  of  1229,  for  it  is  that  of  the  roll  sent 
to  Stephen,  the  pope's  chaplain:   (In  rotulo  misso  Stephano  capel- 
lano  domini  P.  P.  sic:")   The  estimate  is   £100.     The  valuation  of 
this  same  deanery  for  the  levy  of  the  twentieth  of  1216  was  133m  10s 
("et  sic  fuit  aestimatio  decanatus  et  praebendae  decani  cxx  marc'  et 
xiii  marc'  et  x  solidi")  (Reg.  S.  Osm.,  II,  70,  note  1). 


178 


CHAPTER  VI 

THE  TAXES  IN  DETAIL  FROM  1229  TO  1242 

IK  7ITH  1229  Henry  III  began  to  direct  his  govern- 
ment. The  period  covered  by  this  chapter  is 
characterized  by  increase  in  taxation  and  by  a  corre- 
sponding increase  of  resistance  on  the  part  of  the  tenants 
in  chief,  though  the  opposition  had  not  as  yet  reached 
the  point  where  it  placed  an  effective  check  on  the  grow- 
ing power  of  the  king.  At  the  close  of  the  period  it  was 
as  yet  uncertain  whether  or  not  the  king  would  be  success- 
ful in  establishing  the  right  to  levy  aids  at  will  as  long 
as  he  was  careful  to  observe  the  form  of  assembling  the 
great  council  and  asking  its  consent.  The  advance  in  the 
demands  of  the  king  began  on  the  occasion  of  the  expe- 
dition to  Gascony.  Two  scutages  were  taken,  one  of 
which  was  accompanied  by  fines.  For  the  campaign 
against  Richard  Marshal  in  1233,  fines  were  also  taken. 
Three  aids  were  taken  from  1232  to  1237,  that  is,  within 
six  years,  and  two  of  these  were  on  personal  property. 
The  king  tried  to  have  the  aid  of  1235  paid  not  merely 
on  the  usual  number,  but  on  all  the  knights'  fees. 

But  while  Henry  III  was  thus  establishing  precedents 
which  might  lead  to  arbitrary  taxation,  there  were  not 
lacking  indications  of  growing  opposition  among  the 
barons.  The  bishops  in  1229  held  the  king  to  what  they 
evidently  considered  to  be  the  law;  they  paid  him  an  aid 
and  not  a  scutage,  thus  asserting  a  claim  that  they  did 
not  owe  service  in  France  for  their  fees.  In  1231,  all  the 
clergy  paid  an  aid  and  not  a  scutage,  and  in  so  doing  the 

179 


STUDIES  IN  TAXATION 

religious  houses  seem  to  have  asserted  that  the  king  had 
no  right  in  law  to  a  second  scutage  for  the  campaign  in 
Gascony.  No  scutage  was  levied  for  the  campaign  against 
Richard  Marshal  and  none  for  the  expedition  to  Wales 
in  1241,  and  here  no  doubt  we  see  the  enforcement  of  the 
baronial  will  that  scutage  was  not  legally  due  in  these 
cases.  In  1235,  it  seems  likely  that  the  king  did  not 
succeed  in  his  effort  to  have  the  aid  paid  on  all  fees  instead 
of  on  the  customary  number,  though  of  this  we  cannot 
be  quite  sure.1  There  were  numerous  cases  of  debate  and 
of  postponement  of  the  grant  (1231,  1232,  1237).  In 
1237,  proposals  were  made  by  the  barons  to  control  the 
royal  expenditure  and  the  king  had  to  promise  that  he 
would  not  consider  the  thirtieth  as  a  precedent  for  future 
demands. 

Several  dona  were  taken  in  connection  with  taxes  on 
other  parts  of  the  community.  The  fact  that  the  demesne 
paid  a  tallage  instead  of  the  thirtieth  is  interesting. 
Whatever  the  reason  was,  this  substitution  had  the  effect 
of  denying  that  the  grant  by  the  great  council  bound 
the  men  on  the  royal  demesne.  The  scutages  of  this 
period  were  all  strict  scutages.  Tenants  served  in  the 
host  with  only  part  of  their  quotas. 

THE  TAXATION  FOE  THE  CAMPAIGN  OF  1230 

Up  to  this  time,  in  Henry  Ill's  reign,  the  scutage  had 
been  levied  in  connection  with  insular  expeditions,  had 
been  put  in  charge  at  or  near  the  close  of  the  campaign, 
and  had  been  regarded  as  the  composition  for  service. 
For  such  campaigns,  usually  lasting  not  much  longer  than 
the  feudal  period  of  service  and  sometimes  not  as  long 
and  requiring  a  comparatively  small  number  of  knights, 

i  The  account  of  this  levy  is  not  in  the  Pipe  Roll.  The  accounts 
entered  in  the  Testa  de  Nevill  do  not  permit  one  to  say  on  how  many 
fees  the  tax  was  paid. 

180 


UNDER  JOHN  AND  HENRY  III 

the  government  could  afford  to  be  lenient  in  the  inter- 
pretation of  the  law  of  military  service.  The  invasion 
of  France  was  an  affair  requiring  a  much  larger  force 
than  an  expedition  within  England  itself,  and  far  more 
money.  In  1226,  about  £36,000  of  the  fifteenth  had  been 
sent  to  Richard  for  his  expenses  in  Gascony.  Just  before 
Henry  III  sailed  in  1230,  he  acknowledged  the  receipt  of 
11,100  marks  from  the  English  treasury.2  While  at 
Nantes,  he  borrowed  3,000  marks  from  Gascon  mer- 
chants,3 and  in  July  was  writing  to  the  exchequer  for 
more  money.4  Just  before  his  return  to  England  in 
September,  he  received  9,000  marks  more,8  and  at  the 
same  time  bound  himself  to  pay  the  count  of  Brittany 
6,000  marks  on  his  arrival  home,  and  to  send  to  the  earl 
of  Chester  whom  he  left  in  charge  in  France  1,000  marks 
to  carry  on  the  war.6  The  expectation  of  this  heavy 
expense  was  probably  Hubert  de  Burgh's  reason  for 
opposing  the  expedition. 

In  July,  1229,  at  a  council  of  the  lay  tenants  held  at 
Northampton,  it  was  resolved  to  invade  France,  and  the 
great  barons  were  then  summoned  to  meet  at  Portsmouth 
on  October  14.  The  general  summons  to  the  lesser  tenants 
was  issued  in  September.7  Partly  on  account  of  the 
season  and  partly  on  account  of  the  insufficient  number 
of  ships,  which  the  justiciar  had  succeeded  in  assembling, 
the  expedition  was  postponed  till  the  following  Easter.8 
On  April  30,  the  host  finally  set  sail,  landed  in  Brittany 

2  Pat .  Rolls,  II,  335,  337,  341. 

3  Ibid.,  378,  379. 

*  Shirley,  I,  382.  In  May,  the  king  wrote  to  England  for  6,000 
marks  of  the  tallage  of  the  Jews  and  all  the  other  money  in  the 
exchequer.  Up  to  July  1,  he  had  received  none  of  this  (Close  Rolls, 
I,  411,  417). 

*Pat.  Rolls,  II,  397. 

6  Ibid.,  400,  401. 

T  Close  Rolls,  I,  248;  Madox,  I,  607,  n.  z. 

s  Wend.,  IV,  204-205;  Theok.,  p.  73;  Close  Rolls,  I,  256,  380. 

181 


STUDIES  IN  TAXATION 

and  marched  south  to  Gascony.  The  campaign  ended  in 
September.9  The  tenants  were  thus  summoned  twice. 
On  both  occasions,  the  army  seems  to  have  been  large, 
though  nothing  definite  can  be  said  about  it.10  At  least 
230  ships  were  employed  for  transportation.11  The 
Patent  Roll  gives  the  names  of  nearly  400  men  who 
received  letters  of  protection  because  they  accompanied 
the  king.12  The  Scutage  Roll  of  Poitou  contains  161 
names.13  The  force  would  be  larger  than  either  of  the 
last  two  numbers,  for  the  great  barons  who  received  letters 
of  protection  or  of  scutage  would  be  accompanied  by 
knights.14  There  were  lesser  tenants  as  well  as  greater 
in  the  host,15  and  mercenaries  were  also  employed.16 

It  is  quite  certain  that  the  barons  did  not  answer  the 
summons  with  their  full  contingents.  In  some  cases  the 
writ  stated  that  the  tenant  was  to  come  with  only  part 
of  his  men.  The  earl  of  Chester,  at  least  59  fees,  was  to 
come  with  19  knights;17  Walter  de  Lacy,  51%  fees,  was 


»  Rymer,  I,  198;  Pat.  Rolls,  II,  395. 
10  Wav.,  p.  308;  Wend.,  IV,  209. 
"  Pat.  Rolls,  II,  370-3T4. 

12  Ibid.,  357  ff. 

13  Genealogist,  New  Series  (1884),  I,  73-76,  described  as  a  Scutage 
Roll  of  the  sixth  year  of  Henry  III;  it  should  be  the  fourteenth  year. 

i*  In  many  cases  the  Scutage  Roll  states  "qui  habuit  milites  suos." 

is  See  these  cases:  William  de  Siffrewast,  1  fee;  Elias  de  Bolton, 
1  fee  of  the  honor  of  Boulogne;  Eustace  de  Moreton,  3  fees  of  the 
honor  of  Peverel;  Peter  de  Goldinton,  4  fees  of  the  same  honor. 
The  Scutage  Roll  (see  above)  states  that  each  of  these  men  was  with 
the  host.  The  writs  of  quittance  in  the  Pipe  Roll  include  lesser 
tenants. 

is  When  the  king  came  home,  he  left  a  force  of  500  knights  and 
1,000  sergeants,  "stipendiaries,"  to  carry  on  the  war;  they  had  prob- 
ably been  employed  before  (Wend.,  IV,  217)  ;  in  September,  the  king 
promised  to  maintain  400  knights  and  100  mounted  sergeants;  of 
these,  100  knights  were  "de  militibus  nostris"  and  the  rest  "ad 
denarios  nostros,"  (Rymer,  I,  198);  see  also,  Pat.  Rolls,  II,  399,  403, 
405. 

IT  Close  Rolls,  I,  248. 

182 


UNDER  JOHN  AND  HENRY  III 

summoned  with  four  knights;  William  de  Worcester  was 
to  come  with  one  knight,  or  alone,  well  prepared.18  The 
Scutage  Roll  of  1230  (Poitou)  in  a  few  cases  gives  the 
number  of  knights  that  the  tenant  had  with  him  and 
from  this  it  is  seen  that  only  a  part  of  the  service  was 
performed.19 

Knights 

in  array  Fees 

John  de  Heriz        ...  1  420 

Hugo  Painel  ...  2  621 

Ralph  de  Sudley    ...  1  822 

Payn  de  Chaworth  .          .  1  12%23 

Walter  de  Estlegh  .          .1  1024 

Ralph  de  Newland  .          .  1  225 

Baldwin  de  Redvers  1  526 


These  cases  may  fairly  be  regarded  as  typical. 

It  has  been  questioned  whether  one  or  two  scutages 
were  levied  for  this  campaign.27  In  the  Pipe  Roll  of  1230 
there  appears  a  scutage  of  Brittany,  or  "de  prima  trans- 
fretatione";  in  1231,  there  is  another  scutage,  whose 
account  is  rendered  separately,  called  the  scutage  of 

is  Close  Rolls,  I,  256. 
is  Genealogist,  above. 

20  Pipe  Roll,  14  Henry  III,  Notts,  and  Derby. 

21  Three  fees  in  Line,  and  three  fees  in  York. 

22  Pipe  Roll,  15  Henry  III,  Glouc. 

23  Ibid. 

24  Ibid.,  14  Henry  III,  Dors,  and  Somers. 

25  Ibid.,  Essex  and  Herts,  Honor  of  Boulogne. 

26  "qui  habet  1  militem  pro  se  in  servicio  domini  regis  in  partibus 
transmarinis,"  14  June   (Pat.  Rolls,  II,  380)  ;  he  held  5  fees  in  the 
honor  of  Boulogne. 

27  Stubbs,  Const.  Hist.,  II   (3rd  ed.),  42,  gives  two  scutages:  Hall, 
Red  Book,  II,  clxxxviii,  gives  only  one  scutage;  Ramsay,  Dawn  of 
the  Constitution,  p.  57,  note,  gives  the  views  of  both;  the  last  author 
cites  a  letter  of  the  king   from  Shirley,  I,  394,  as  evidence  of  one 
scutage  only,  but  that  letter  refers  to  the  second  levy  and  does  not 
exclude  a  previous  scutage. 

183 


STUDIES  IN  TAXATION 

Poitou,  "post  primam  transfretationem."  Both  were  at 
the  same  rate,  three  marks  per  fee.  The  scutage  of 
Brittany  was  accompanied  by  fines ;  that  of  Poitou  was 
not.  Unless  there  is  evidence  to  the  contrary,  we  may 
conclude  from  the  separate  entries  that  there  were  two 
levies.  Further  there  were  two  grants  of  scutage;  the 
first  was  fixed  in  a  council  at  Northampton  in  July,  1229, 
and  the  second  in  September,  1230.28  The  bishops  did 
not  pay  scutage,  but  they  made  two  separate  grants  of 
aid  at  three  marks  per  fee.29  The  accounts  of  individual 
tenants  show  that  a  second  scutage  was  taken.  Henry 
de  Braybrook  was  charged  with  60  marks  fine  and  scutage 
on  13%  fees  (scutage  of  Brittany),  all  of  which  was 
paid;  he  was  also  charged  with  £27  of  the  scutage  of 
Poitou,30  nearly  all  of  which  was  paid.  Thomas  Fitz 
William  had  a  writ  of  quittance  for  the  scutage  of  Brit- 
tany and  was  charged  with  10m  for  that  of  Poitou.31 
Robert  de  Beauchamp  paid  40m  of  fine  "ne  transfretet" 
in  lieu  of  the  scutage  of  Brittany ;  he  also  paid  the  scutage 
of  Poitou.32  The  abbot  of  Peterborough  paid  100m  "in 
auxilio"  and  180m  scutage  when  the  king  crossed;  when 
the  latter  returned,  he  demanded  another  scutage.33 
Rear-vassals  were  sued  at  law  by  their  lords  for  failure 
to  pay  two  scutages  at  this  time.34  There  are  two  Scutage 
Rolls,  one  "pro  exercitu  nostro  ad  primam  transfreta- 
tionem" and  another  "pro  exercitu  nostro  Pictavise  post 

28  See  below,  pp.  186,  191. 

29  See  below,  pp.  189,  192. 

so  Pipe  Roll,  14,  15,  and  16  Henry  III,  Northamp. 

si  Ibid.,  14  and  15  Henry  III,  York;  half  of  the  sum  charged  was 
paid  in  1231. 

32  Ibid.,  14,  15,  and  16  Henry  III,  Dors,  and  Somers.  This  tenant 
held  17  fees  of  the  honor  of  Mortain  which  paid  at  five-eighths  the 
ordinary  rate;  consequently  his  scutage  in  each  case  would  have  been 
marks. 

as  Chron.  Petrob.,  p.  11. 

s*  Bracton,  Note  Book,  cases  727,  789;  cf.  Excerpta,  I,  210. 

184 


UNDER  JOHN  AND  HENRY  III 

primam  transfretationem."35  It  seems  certain  that  two 
scutages  were  levied. 

The  account  of  the  scutage  of  Brittany  follows : 

Scutage  at  3m 

M  s  d 

Bishops  (auxilium  at  3m  per  fee)36      1352  0  0 
Twenty-one   lay   tenants    (each    5    or 

more  fees)  .          .  .      1484  6  4 

Other  lay  tenants  (each  fewer  than  5 

fees,  etc.)87  .          .          .        602  2  3 

Total  .....      3438  8  7 

Fine  Fees 

Clerical  tenants  .  .  .1089  0  0  251 
Twenty-six  lay  tenants  (each  5  or 

more  fees)  ....  1704  10  8  386 
Other  lay  tenants  (each  fewer  than  5 

fees,  etc.)38  .  .  .  1240  7  8  168 

Total 4034  5  0  805 

Additional  fine39             .          .          .  340  0  0 

Total  tax 7813  0  3 

Paid,  1230,  1231            .          .           .  5532  11  0 
Fees  taxed,  about  2100.40 


ss  The  entries  of  the  scutage  of  Brittany  date  from  September  11, 
1229;  of  Poitou,  from  September  17,  1230  (Scutage  Rolls,  no.  2,  for 
Brittany;  no.  5,  for  Poitou). 

38  The  archbishop  of  Canterbury  is  charged  with  200m,  all  of  which 
was  paid;  the  bishops  of  Winchester  and  Chichester  were  charged 
with  180m  and  12m  respectively,  but  the  sums  were  later  pardoned 
and  have  not  been  included  here. 

37  Of  this  sum,  244m  were  on  honors  in  hand. 

ss  438m  on  66  fees  are  on  honors  in  hand,  leaving  about  800m  on 
100  fees  of  tenants  in  chief. 

39  Number  of  fees  unknown. 

*°  The  county  of  Cornwall  no  longer  appears  in  the  roll  since  it 
was  given  to  Richard,  the  king's  brother. 

185 


STUDIES  IN  TAXATION 

This  was  a  scutage  in  the  strict  sense  levied  on  the  lay 
tenants,  the  abbots,  and  the  priors  who  did  not  perform 
their  service.41  A  council  of  the  earls  and  barons  had 
been  held  at  Northampton  in  July  and  there  it  was  deter- 
mined to  invade  France  in  October;  at  the  same  time  it 
was  agreed  that  a  scutage  at  three  marks  per  fee  should 
be  levied.42  As  the  king  was  able  to  force  his  tenants  to 
accompany  him  on  this  expedition,  as  the  scutage  was 
taken  from  those  who  failed  to  answer  the  summons  to 
the  host,  and  as  Henry  III  was  able  to  exact  from  recal- 
citrants fines  in  addition  to  scutage,  it  seems  certain  that 
this  scutage  rested  on  the  king's  right  to  the  military 
service  of  his  tenants.  The  words  of  the  bishops  point 
to  the  same  conclusion.  Their  statement  that  they  would 
make  an  aid,  but  not  because  they  were  summoned  to  cross 
with  the  king,  implies  that  the  payments  of  other  tenants 
were  made  because  of  this  summons.43 

Although  it  had  been  determined  in  July,  1229,  to  take 
a  scutage,  the  collection  did  not  begin  at  once,  for  the 

*i  In  each  county,  there  are  writs  of  quittance  in  the  Pipe  Roll. 

«  One  account  of  this  council  suggests  that  it  was  summoned  to 
grant  the  scutage:  "cum  scutagium  esset  assisum,  scilicet,  de  feodo 
inilitis  3m  de  consilio  comitum  et  baronum  ...  ad  hoc  vocatorum" 
(Madox,  I,  607,  n.  z).  But  it  seems  probable  that  the  main  business 
was  to  get  the  barons  to  agree  to  invade  France.  The  king  had  been 
anxious  to  do  this  for  the  past  three  years,  but  had  been  unable  to 
bring  it  about.  In  1226  and  1227,  he  had  proposed  it  (see  above, 
p.  171).  At  Christmas,  1228,  he  was  with  difficulty  persuaded  to 
defer  the  matter  (Wend.,  IV,  179) ;  in  February,  1229,  he  wrote  to 
the  magnates  concerning  an  expedition  which  was  soon  to  be  under- 
taken (Close  Rolls,  I,  232),  so  that  the  July  meeting  was  probably 
called  for  this  purpose.  Further,  the  writs  of  summons  to  the  host 
say  "de  consilio  comitum  et  baronum  nostrorum  Angliae,  firmiter 
proposuimus  .  .  .  transfretare."  They  were  sent  out  July  27,  five 
days  after  the  council  (Close  Rolls,  I,  248). 

*3  "concesserunt  tantum  dare  in  auxilium  .  .  .  non  propter  sum- 
monicionem  eis  factam  ad  habendum  totum  servicium  suum  quod 
domini  regi  debent  apud  Potesmue  ad  transfretandum  cum  eo" 
(Madox,  above). 

186 


UNDER  JOHN  AND  HENRY  III 

account  does  not  appear  in  the  Michaelmas  roll  of  this 
year.44  In  September,  notices  of  fines  for  exemption 
from  service  and  for  having  scutage  are  found,  so  that 
orders  for  the  collection  of  the  tax  were  probably  issued 
soon  after  September  10,  the  date  of  the  general  summons 
to  the  host.45  This  scutage  was  paid  by  those  who  failed 
to  answer  the  summons  of  October.46 

The  tenant  who  failed  to  serve  did  not  always  escape 
with  a  payment  of  scutage.  Fines  were  levied.  They 
usually  included  the  scutage,  but  not  always.  Robert  de 
Beauchamp  paid  40m  ne  transfretet  and  to  have  quittance 
of  the  scutage  of  17  fees.  Robert  de  Novo  Burgo 
accounted  for  20m  fine  for  his  passage,  saving  to  the 
king  the  scutage  from  15  fees.47  The  average  rate  per 
fee  on  the  holdings  of  the  lesser  tenants  was  nearly  eight 
marks,  while  on  the  religious  houses  and  the  greater  lay 
tenants  it  was  less  than  five  marks  per  fee.  Thus  the 

**  Cf,  above,  the  scutage  of  Bedford,  not  put  in  charge  till  August, 
yet  it  appears  in  the  roll  of  the  same  year. 

**Excerpta,  I,  188;  Close  Rolls,  I,  214,  215,  220.  As  the  scutage 
was  not  an  aid,  the  orders  for  the  collection  could  hardly  be  issued 
till  the  summons  to  the  host  went  out.  Writs  de  habendo  scutagio 
were  issued  September  11  (Scutage  Rolls,  no.  2)  and  this  is  probably 
the  date  when  orders  to  collect  the  scutage  were  issued. 

**  Thus  those  who  had  agreed  to  come  were  allowed  to  have  their 
scutage.  In  some  cases,  it  is  stated  that  the  tenant  had  his  scutage 
because  he  appeared  at  Portsmouth  in  October,  1229:  "Quia  Gal- 
fridus  de  NevilP  fuit  apud  Portesm'  a  die  S.  Michaelis  etc.  .  .  . 
promptus  et  paratus  transfretare  cum  rege,  concessit  ei  rex  scutagium 
suum"  (Close  Rolls,  I,  314) ;  also  for  Henry  de  Tebbetot  (ibid., 
335);  for  other  notices  of  the  levy  of  this  scutage  in  connection  with 
the  summons  of  October,  1229,  ibid.,  266,  281,  285,  293,  298,  300,  321, 
342,  346.  The  same  tenants  do  not  pay  both  the  scutages  of  Brittany 
and  Poitou,  a  fact  which  suggests  that  they  were  levied  in  connection 
with  different  summons. 

47  Pipe  Roll,  14  Henry  III,  Dors,  and  Somers.;  Madox,  I,  661,  n.  i. 
Robert  de  Beauchamp  held  of  the  honor  of  Mortain  which  paid  at 
five-eighths  the  ordinary  rate,  so  that  his  scutage  would  have' been 
marks. 

187 


STUDIES  IN  TAXATION 

larger  proportion  of  the  fines  fell  on  the  lesser  tenants.48 
Some  of  the  heaviest  fines  on  important  vassals  were  (fine 
including  scutage)  :  the  abbot  of  Ramsey,  50m  on  4  fees;49 
the  abbot  of  Abingdon,  120m  on  30  fees  ;50  the  abbess  of 
St.  Edwards,  40m  on  7  fees  ;51  the  abbot  of  Westminster, 
100m  on  15  fees;52  Margaret  de  Redvers,  200m  on  about 
53  fees;53  the  countess  of  Oxford,  180m  on  30y8  fees;54 
John  de  Stutevill,  75m  on  15  fees.55  In  some  of  these 
cases  the  fine  was  so  heavy  that  the  tenant  might  well 
have  preferred  to  perform  his  service,  if  the  choice  were 
given  him,  especially  since  only  service  in  part  was 
required.  The  tenant  in  chief  who  had  satisfied  the  king 
for  his  service  received  permission  to  collect  scutage  from 
his  vassals  and  was  aided  in  this  by  the  sheriff.58  The 

«  See  above,  p.  185. 

49  Pipe  Roll,  14  Henry  III,  Cant,  and  Hunt. 

so  Ibid.,  Berks. 

BI  Ibid.,  Dors,  and  Somers. 

52/fcid.,  Wigorn. 

53  Ibid.,  Oxf . 

54  Ibid.,  Essex  and  Herts. 

55  Ibid.,  Notts,  and  Derby. 

se  For  Ralph  de  Freskenvill'  (Close  Rolls,  I,  222);  see  also,  pp. 
214,  215,  220  for  cases.  "Nicholaus  de  Guronde  .  .  .  distringendus 
est  in  Kancia"  (Madox,  I,  647,  n.  z).  "Rex  vicecomiti.  Precipimus 
tibi  quod  sis  in  auxilium  Hugoni  le  Poer  ad  distringendum  Jacobum 
de  Soleriis  et  Thomam  de  Bakervill'  ad  faciendum  eidem  Hugoni 
servicium  quod  facere  debent  et  solent  .  .  .  ne  per  defectum  tui 
remaneat  quo  minus  idem  Hugo  nobis  possit  sufficienter  respondere 
de  scutagiis  nostris  que  nobis  debet  de  eisdem  tenementis"  (Exch., 
L.  T.  R.  Mem.  Roll,  m.  5,  14  Henry  III) ;  Jordan  de  Arch'  of  the 
honor  of  Wallingford  was  granted  delay  in  paying  his  fine  "et 
averia  sua  .  .  .  capta  ei  deliberes"  (ibid.,  m.  4).  The  tenant  who 
fined  was  allowed  to  collect  scutage  and  no  more,  from  his  tenants: 
"Henricus  de  Braybroc  finem  fecit  cum  domino  rege  per  Ix  marc, 
pro  passagio  suo  et  pro  habendo  scutagio  suo  de  feodis  militum  que 
de  rege  tenet  in  capite,  scilicet,  de  scuto  iii  marc,  pro  exercitu  regis 
ad  primam  transfretationem  suam  etc."  (Fine  Roll,  14  Henry  III, 
part  1,  m.  7) ;  the  amount  which  is  pardoned  a  rear-vassal  by  the 
king  is  scutage  when  the  lord  fines  and  scutage  only  is  what  is 
deducted  from  the  lord's  fine:  thus  the  abbot  of  Abingdon  fined  in 

188 


UNDER  JOHN  AND  HENRY  III 

incidence  did  not  stop  with  the  immediate  vassal  of  the 
tenant  in  chief;  men  further  down  the  feudal  ladder  had 
to  pay  scutage.57 

A  remarkable  feature  of  this  levy  was  the  action  of 
the  bishops.  They  had  not  been  present  at  the  meeting 
at  Northampton  in  July  and  were  called  together  at 
London  in  October.  They  opposed  the  levy  of  the  scutage 
and  instead  were  allowed  to  grant  the  king  an  aid  on  all 
their  fees  at  three  marks  per  fee,  a  grant  that  had  nothing 
to  do  with  the  summons  to  the  host.  They  also  received 
letters  patent  promising  that  the  grant  should  not  con- 
stitute a  precedent.  By  their  action  the  bishops  seem 
to  claim  that  they  did  not  owe  service  in  France.  Henry 
III  did  not  meet  the  issue  squarely;  his  letters  patent 
stated  that  the  aid  of  the  bishops  should  not  form  a 
precedent  but  that  his  rights  were  neither  increased  nor 
decreased.58 

£80  for  his  30  fees;  he  paid  £78  "et  in  perdonis  Petro  filio  Herberti 
(his  vassal)  iii  marc,  de  i  feodo  per  breve  regis  et  (abbas)  quietus 
est"  (Pipe  Roll,  14  Henry  III,  Berks,  m.  9).  The  king  might  help 
the  tenant  in  chief  pay  the  fine  by  granting  him  "literae  depreca- 
toriae"  asking  his  men  to  help  their  lord  pay  his  fine  by  making  him 
an  aid  (Pat.  Rolls,  II,  268,  273).  The  tenant  who  paid  only  scutage 
received  a  writ  allowing  him  to  collect  scutage  from  his  vassals; 
Robert  Fitz  Walter  paid  scutage  only  (Pipe  Roll,  14  Henry  III, 
Essex  and  Herts.) ;  he  was  allowed  to  collect  scutage  from  his  tenants 
to  respond  at  the  exchequer  (Fine  Roll,  13  Henry  III,  m.  2).  The 
tenant  who  performed  service  was  allowed  the  writ  de  scutagio 
habendo. 

s?  The  sheriff  was  to  distrain  the  tenants  of  Geoffrey  de  Dunstan- 
vill,  a  rear-vassal  (Close  Rolls,  I,  321). 

ss  Madox,  I,  607,  n.  z.  In  the  Pipe  Roll,  the  payments  of  the 
bishops  are  usually  entered  separately,  as  "de  auxilio  ad  primam 
transfretationem."  The  bishop  of  Ely  however  paid  120m  "de  fine 
pro  scutagio  40  militum  quos  recognoscit"  and  accounted  for  £24  1m 
on  12^  fees  "quos  non  recognoscit"  (Pipe  Roll,  14  Henry  III,  Cant, 
and  Hunt.).  This  claim  of  the  bishops  may  be  a  recurrence  of  the 
claims  set  forth  in  1198.  That  Henry  III  allowed  it  would  not 
prove  that  he  had  no  legal  right  to  the  service.  It  was  characteristic 

189 


STUDIES  IN  TAXATION 

Religious  houses  which  did  not  hold  land  by  knights' 
service  were  also  compelled  to  contribute.59  A  tallage 
was  levied,  accounts  of  which  appear  in  thirty  counties 
in  1230  and  123 1.60  The  towns  fined  in  lump  sums  and 
thus  had  charge  of  the  assessment  and  collection.  In 
each  county  the  levy  was  in  charge  of  a  committee  con- 
sisting of  the  sheriff  and  some  other  royal  officials,  usually 
judges,  specially  delegated  for  this  work.  In  some  cases, 
these  were  itinerant  justices.61  The  money  was  generally 

of  him  that  as  long  as  he  got  the  money,  he  would  not  quibble  about 
the  form. 

59  Wend.,  IV,  209 ;  the  abbot  of  Fiscamp  paid  200m  "de  dono  in 
auxilium  ad  primam  transfretationem  regis"  (Pipe  Roll,  14  Henry 
III,  Sussex) ;  the  prior  of  Worcester  24  marks  "in  subsidium  guerrae 
suae"  (Wig.,  p.  422) ;  Theok.,  p.  77. 

eo  It  was  put  in  charge  in  1229  (Close  Rolls,  I,  276;  Dunst.,  p.  120), 
and  is  referred  to  under  1230  by  Wendover  (IV,  209).  The  accounts 
appear  for  the  most  part  in  the  Pipe  Roll  of  1230.  Hereford,  Sussex, 
Surrey,  Westmoreland,  Rutland,  and  Cornwall  are  omitted. 

«i  London  is  included,  paying  1,000m  "de  auxilio  promisso  regi  ad 
primam  trans fretacionem  suam"  (Pipe  Roll,  15  and  16  Henry  III, 
Lond.  and  Midd.).  In  Salop  and  Stafford,  the  tallage  was  levied  by 
Henry  de  Alditheleg,  the  sheriff,  and  William  Basset;  in  Wilts,  by 
Henry  de  Scaccario  and  Walter  de  Rumeseye,  justices;  in  Gloucester, 
by  William  de  Putot,  sheriff,  and  William  Rufus,  justice;  in  Hants, 
by  Henry  de  Bada,  under-sheriff,  John  de  Gatesden,  and  William 
de  Insula,  itinerant  justice  (Bracton,  Note  Book,  I,  pp.  140,  141); 
in  Northampton,  by  Stephen  de  Segrave,  sheriff  and  also  itinerant 
justice  (Bracton,  above)  and  "socios  suos";  in  Norfolk  and  Suffolk, 
by  Godfrey  de  Craucumb  and  William  de  Haverhull,  justices.  The 
persons  by  whom  the  tallage  is  levied  are  given  in  the  Pipe  Roll; 
the  fact  that  these  men  are  justices  is  given  in  the  Patent  Rolls.  The 
sheriff  is  not  always  mentioned  as  one  of  those  who  levy  the  tallage 
so  that  perhaps  he  did  not  always  act,  but  the  method  employed  in 
Lincolnshire  is  probably  typical:  the  tallage  was  laid  by  the  sheriff, 
Walter  de  Evermuth',  and  Walter  de  BrackeF,  a  clerk  of  the  ward- 
robe. Twelve  men  from  each  part  of  the  demesne  were  summoned  to 
meet  this  committee  of  three  and  they  in  cooperation  with  the  three 
assessors  fixed  the  tallage  of  their  part  of  the  demesne:  "de  singulis 
dominicis  ejusdem  comitatus  duodecim  .  .  .  homines  ad  tallagium 
illud  assidendum,  tarn  super  dominica  predicta  quam  in  civitate 
predicta"  (Close  Rolls,  I,  280). 

190 


UNDER  JOHN  AND  HENRY  III 

paid  to  the  sheriff  and  he  accounted  for  it  at  the  exche- 
quer. The  receipts  amounted  to  about  5,400  marks,  not 
an  exorbitant  sum.  The  Jews  were  also  taxed,  apparently 
in  a  sum  of  8,000  marks.62 

The  returns  of  the  scutage  of  Poitou  follow.  They  are 
given  in  the  Pipe  Roll  of  1231;  the  only  prelate  charged 
was  the  abbot  of  Ramsey. 

Scutage  at  3m 
<£         s       d 

Abbot  of  Ramsey 800 

Sixty  lay  tenants  (each  5  or  more  fees)63  .  2772  12  8 
Other  lay  tenants  (each  fewer  than  5  fees, 

etc.)64 699       3     10 

Total 3479     16       6 

Paid,,  15  and  16  Henry  III  ...    1593        1        4 

Fees  taxed,  about,  1750. 

The  scutage  of  Poitou  was  put  in  charge  in  September, 
1230,  by  the  advice  of  the  magnates  who  were  with  the 
host85  and  was  to  be  paid  at  the  exchequer  on  December 
I.86  It  was  not  an  aid,  but  a  scutage  in  the  strict  sense.67 

62  A  third  of  their  goods    (Wend.,  IV,  209);  a  tallage  of  8,000 
marks  is  mentioned  in  the  Pipe  Roll,  14  Henry  III,  Hereford;  Gal. 
Pat.  Rolls,  I,  12-13;  Shirley,  I,  392. 

63  Nearly  all  are  tenants  in  chief. 

«*  About  £250  are  charged  against  honors  in  hand:  Boulogne, 
Camiel,  Peverel,  and  Lancaster.  Beginning  with  this  tax,  the  honor 
of  Wallingford  never  pays  to  the  king;  it  is  in  the  hand  of  Earl 
Richard  of  Cornwall. 

65  Wend.,  IV,  218,  219;  Genealogist,  New  Series,  I,  73,  contains  161 
writs  de  habendo  scutagio  issued  at  this  time. 

se  "Mandatum  est  vicecomiti  Cumbr'  quod  de  omnibus  feodis  mili- 
tum  que  de  rege  tenentur  in  capite  .  .  .  habeat  scutagium  ad  scacca- 
rium  regis  in  crastino  S.  Andree  anno  etc.  xv  scilicet  de  scuto  iii 
marc,  pro  exercitu  regis  Pictaviae  post  primam  transfretationem 
suam"  (Fine  Roll,  15  Henry  III,  part  1,  m.  9);  see  also  the  writ  for 
Walter  Clifford  concerning  this  date  (ibid.,  m.  8). 

67  See  the  writs  of  quittance  in  the  Pipe  Roll  of  1231  and  Genealo- 
gist, above,  for  writs  of  scutage. 

191 


STUDIES  IN  TAXATION 

The  clergy  objected  to  the  levy  and  on  December  15, 1230, 
orders  were  issued  not  to  distrain  them  till  January  27,68 
when  a  meeting  of  the  great  council  was  held  and  the 
scutage  was  discussed.69  The  archbishop  of  Canterbury 
and  some  of  the  bishops  opposed  paying  it  on  the  ground 
that  it  had  been  granted  by  the  lay  tenants  abroad  and 
that  the  clergy  were  not  bound  by  the  decisions  of  the 
laity.70  As  a  result  of  the  discussion,  the  sheriffs  were 
ordered  not  to  collect  the  tax  from  any  of  the  clergy.71 
The  latter  met  after  Easter  and  granted  an  aid  at  three 
marks  per  fee;  the  king  issued  letters  patent  promising 
that  the  grant  should  not  constitute  a  precedent  for 
future  levies  but  adding  that  by  it  his  own  rights  were 
neither  increased  nor  decreased.72 

Among  the  lay  tenants,  the  tax  was  paid  only  by  those 
who  had  failed  to  perform  their  service.  The  right  to 
take  it  therefore  rested  on  the  king's  right  to  military 
service.  This  seems  to  be  implied  in  the  speech  of  the 

«8  The  clergy  paid  none  of  the  scutage  and  their  opposition  was 
at  once  heeded.  On  December  2,  distraint  of  the  bishop  of  Rochester 
was  forbidden  till  January  6  (Fine  Roll,  above,  m.  8) ;  on  December 
15,  distraint  was  suspended  till  January  27  throughout  almost  all 
the  province  of  Canterbury  (ibid.) ;  for  York  and  Durham  on 
January  2  (ibid.,  m.  7). 

«»  The  council  met  on  January  26  (Wend.,  above). 

70  "quod  non  tenentur  viri  ecclesiastic!  judicio  subjici  laicorum, 
cum  absque  illis  concessum  fuisset  scutagium  in  finibus  transmarinis" 
(Wend.,  above). 

TI  Roger  of  Wendover  says  that  part  of  the  clergy  agreed  to  the 
king's  demand.  This  may  be  true,  but  no  clerical  tenant,  except  the 
abbot  of  Ramsey,  is  charged  with  scutage  in  the  Pipe  Roll  and  the 
orders  to  the  sheriffs  state  that  none  of  the  clergy  is  to  pay  it 
(Close  Rolls,  I,  474,  475). 

72  Shirley,  I,  394;  Pat.  Rolls,  II,  429;  Close  Rolls,  I,  554,  593.  The 
prelates  were  to  meet  on  April  6  (Wend.,  IV,  219) ;  the  letters 
patent  were  issued  on  April  14,  so  that  the  grant  was  made  between 
these  dates.  The  aid  was  to  be  paid  half  on  June  24  and  half  on 
August  15.  A  separate  account  was  kept  of  it  (Fine  Roll,  15  Henry 
III,  part  1,  m,  5).  It  does  not  appear  in  the  Pipe  Roll. 

192 


UNDER  JOHN  AND  HENRY  III 

earl  of  Chester  in  opposing  the  aid  of  the  fortieth  in 
1232,  when  he  declared  that  inasmuch  as  the  lay  tenants 
had  served  personally  with  the  king  in  France,  they  legally 
owed  him  no  aid.73  The  action  of  the  clergy  (bishops  in 
1229  and  all  clerical  tenants  in  1230)  in  refusing  to  pay 
a  scutage  and  paying  instead  an  aid  thus  seems  to  be  an 
encroachment  on  the  king's  rights  to  military  service. 
On  both  occasions,  Henry  III  promised  that  the  grant 
should  not  form  a  precedent.  Each  time  however  he 
inserted  a  statement  safeguarding  his  own  rights,  and  this 
may  relate  to  his  right  to  military  service.74  The  letters 
patent  which  he  issued  in  return  for  aids  to  which  he  had 
no  right,  except  through  the  grant  by  the  tenants, 
contained  no  such  reservation  in  his  own  favor.75 

The  number  of  lay  tenants  who  held  ten  or  more  fees 
and  paid  scutage  was  larger  than  usual.  Of  these  thirteen 
held  more  than  twenty  fees  each.76  Thus  some  of  the 
greater  barons  were  liable  for  the  tax.  No  fines  were 
levied,  so  that  the  scutage  was  the  composition  for  service. 
It  has  been  said  that  the  barons  served  with  only  part 
of  their  contingents,  though  each  received  all  his  scutage.77 

The    method   of   collection    shows    no    change.      Some 

7  s  "comites,  barones  ac  milites,  qui  de  eo  (rege)  tenebant  in 
capite,  cum  ipso  erant  ibi  corporaliter  praesentes,  .  .  .  unde  regi  de 
jure  auxiliura  non  debebant"  (Wend.,  IV,  233). 

74  In  1229:  "ita  quod  per  hanc  concessionem  suam  domino  regi  vel 
heredibus    suis,    seu    episcopis    vel    successoribus    suis,    nichil    juris 
accrescat    vel    decrescat"     (Madox,    I,    n.    2) ;    in    1231 :    "nolumus 
etiam    quod    propter    hanc    concessionem    nostram    quam    fecimus, 
aliquid  nobis   vel  haeredibus   nostris   accrescat  vel   decrescat"    (Pat. 
Rolls,  II,  429). 

75  See  the  taxes  of  1224,  1235,  1237,  pp.  157,  209,  214. 

76  William  Fitz  Warren,  30  fees  (fee  of  John  de  Wahull),  Henry 
de  Oilli ;  32i£  fees,  the  countess  of  Oxford,  30^  fees,  Walter  de  Lacy, 
5114  fees,  Ralph  de  Sumery,  50  fees,  earl  Warenne,  60  fees,  were 
among  them/ 

7"  Those  men  cited  above,  p.  183,  as  having  performed  only  part  of 
their  service  received  all  their  scutage  (Genealogist,  above). 

193 


STUDIES  IN  TAXATION 

tenants  collected  the  scutage  themselves  and  responded 
either  to  the  exchequer  or  to  the  sheriff,  who  delivered  it 
at  the  exchequer.78  The  sheriff  distrained  tenants  to  pay 
their  scutage  to  the  king79  and  rear-vassals  to  pay  it  to 
their  lords.80  Sometimes  he  may  have  collected  it  from 
rear-vassals  for  the  exchequer,81  but  he  did  not  collect  it 
from  all  rear-vassals.82  The  scutage  ultimately  fell  on  the 

78  In  the  Pipe  Roll,  some  tenants  are  represented  as  responding  at 
the  exchequer  while  the  sheriff  responds   for  others.     In  the  Close 
Roll,  there  are  references  to  the  fact  that  tenants  collect  their  scutage 
from  their  vassals:  "filius  et  heres  Henrici  de  la  Pomeraye,  qui  est 
in   custodia    Radulfi    de    TrublevilT  .  .  .  per   manum    suam    colligat 
scutagium"   (Close  Rolls,  I,  466)  ;  "per  manum  suam  colligat  scuta- 
gium"   (ibid.,  p.  467)  ;  "nisi  idem  Rogerus  scutagium  illud  receperit 
a  predictis   militibus    (his   tenants)"    (ibid.,   491);   "Mandatum    est 
vicecomiti  Line'  quod  non  distringat  Hugonem  de  NevilT  pro  scutagio 
exercitus  Pictavie  .  .  .  de  quo  colligendo  non  habuit  breve  regis  nee 
illud  colligit,  ut  dicit"  (ibid.,  II,  201);  see  cases  of  tenants  who  had 
writs   to  collect   their  scutage   and   respond   at   the   exchequer,   earl 
Warenne,  Robert  Fitz  Walter,  etc.  (Fine  Roll,  15  Henry  III,  part  1, 
m.  6,  7,  8). 

79  Roger   de   Sumery    (Close  Rolls,   I,  491);   forbidding  distraint 
(ibid.,  495;  II,  201). 

so  Thus  the  writ  by  which  the  tenant  was  allowed  to  have  his 
scutage  was  addressed  to  the  sheriff  ordering  him  to  cause  the 
tenant  to  have  his  scutage  (ibid.,  I,  484) ;  order  to  distrain  the 
countess  of  Oxford,  as  a  sub-tenant  (ibid.,  313) ;  see  above,  note  78. 

si  William  de  Hastings  accounted  for  £10  in  Gloucester,  of  which 
£3  were  paid  by  the  sheriff  of  Oxford;  Ralph  Musard  accounted  for 
£30  in  Notts,  and  Derby;  part  of  this  was  paid  at  the  exchequer  by 
the  sheriff  of  War.,  and  Leic.  Thomas  de  Birkin  accounted  for  £24 
in  Notts,  and  Derby,  of  which  40s  was  paid  by  the  sheriff  of  Leic. 
(Pipe  Roll,  15  Henry  III).  Ralph  de  Sumery  owed  £102  of  scutage; 
he  paid  £10  in  Staffordshire,  £13  by  the  sheriff  of  Bucks,  £5  by  the 
sheriff  of  War.  and  Leic.,  £7  6s  by  the  sheriff  of  Wigorn.,  £2  by  the 
sheriff  of  Oxford,  and  £16  6s  by  H.  de  Scaccario  (ibid.,  15  and  16 
Henry  III,  Staff.).  It  was  thought  that  the  scutage  of  Hugh  de 
Nevill  was  collected  from  his  vassals  by  the  sheriff  (Close  Rolls,  II, 
201)  ;  the  sheriff  of  Devon  collected  part  of  the  scutage  of  the  fee  of 
Henry  de  la  Pomeraye  (ibid.,  I,  551). 

82  He  collected  nothing  as  a  rule  from  the  tenants  who  served  or 
who  had  writs  to  collect  their  own  scutage.  A  further  indication 
that  the  sheriff  deals  with  the  tenant  in  chief  rather  than  with  the 

194 


UNDER  JOHN  AND  HENRY  III 

sub-tenant.  If  however  the  latter  had  performed  service> 
he  was  exempted  by  the  king.83  The  aid  of  the  clergy  was 
collected  by  them  from  their  tenants.  The  sheriff 
assisted  the  prelates  with  distraint.  Any  sum  pardoned 
to  a  rear-vassal  by  the  king  was  deducted  from  the  aid 
due  from  his  lord.  The  prelate  who  could  not  distrain 
his  tenants  to  pay  was  no  longer  held  accountable  for  that 
amount.84 

Thus  it  is  seen  that  the  ordinary  revenue  was  insuffi- 
cient to  defray  the  expenses  of  a  foreign  war  and  that 
the  money  for  this  purpose  was  raised  by  laying  different 
classes  under  contribution  in  a  manner  similar  to  that 
employed  by  Henry  II.85 

THE  SCUTAGE  or  ELVEYN,  1232 

Hardly  had  the  question  of  the  payment  of  the  aid  of 
the  clergy  been  decided,  when  a  new  occasion  for  taxation 

rear-vassal  is  that  a  tenant  responds  in  one  county  for  scutage 
which  he  owes  in  another.  Peter  Fitz  Herbert  was  charged  with 
£29  8d  scutage  in  Hereford  "sed  respondit  inde  in  Glovernia  in 
rotulo  sequenti"  (Pipe  Roll,  15  Henry  III,  Heref.).  Godfrey  de 
Alno  owes  40s  on  1  fee  in  Wilts  "sed  non  debet  summoneri  in  hoc 
comitatu  quia  non  tenet  nisi  unicum  feodum  et  de  illo  respondit  in 
Sumersat'"  (ibid.,  16  Henry  III,  Wilts,  m.  17  d). 

ss  Thus  Anketill  Malore,  Robert  Aguillum,  and  Godfrey  de 
Craucumb  were  pardoned  their  scutage  on  fees  held  of  tenants  in 
chief  (Pipe  Roll,  15  Henry  III,  York,  Bucks  and  Bedf.;  Close  Rolls, 

I,  461);  this  was  probably  on  account  of  service,  for  they  had  writs 
of  protection  to  go  with  the  king  on  the  expedition  of  1230   (Pat. 
Rolls,  II,  359,  360). 

84  Pat.  Rolls,  II,  429;  "si  nos  aliquid  perdonaverimus  tenentibus  de 
predictis  prelatis  vel  si  ipsi  aliquos  tenentes  de  se  distringere  non 
possint  id  eis  allocabitur.  .  .  .  Mittimus  etiam  vobis  literas  nostras 
directas  vicecomiti  nostro  Surreiae  per  quas  ei  damus  in  mandatis 
quod  vobis  et  aliis  prelatis  .  .  .  de  singulis  feodis  .  .  .  xl  sol.  habere 
faciat  ad  predictura  auxiliura  nobis  faciendum"  (Fine  Roll,  15  Henry 
III,  part  1,  m.  5). 

ss  An  unusual  contribution  was  that  from  the  king  of  Scotland  who 
gave  2,000m.  It  was  not  to  be  drawn  into  a  precedent  (Pat.  Rolls, 

II,  332,  348,  414). 

195 


STUDIES  IN  TAXATION 


arose.  The  renewed  activity  of  the  Welsh  made  an  expe- 
dition against  them  necessary.86  The  campaign  lasted 
from  the  end  of  July  till  the  end  of  September,  about  two 
months.87  Besides  the  knights,  part  of  the  "jurati  ad 
arma"  and  men  of  the  towns  were  ordered  to  perform 
service  in  the  army  for  forty  days.88 

MDunst.,  p.  127;  Wend.,  IV,  220-223;  Wig.,  p.  422;  Osney,  p.  72; 
Wykes,  p.  72;  Brut,  p.  319. 

87  The  host  assembled  in  July  (Close  Rolls,  I,  592,  594,  595);  the 
king  was  at  Hereford  on  July  27,  at  Elveyn  on  July  30  and  remained 
in  Wales  till  September  22,  was  again  at  Hereford  on  September  25, 
where  he  remained  till  October  1,  when  he  started  for  London  (ibid., 
536-561). 

ss  Ibid.,  592,  595,  597 ;  Rymer,  I,  200.  Lesser  tenants  either  served 
or  furnished  their  service;  some  tenants  performed  only  part  of 
their  service  as  will  be  seen  from  the  following  table: 


Jordan  de  Saukevill 
Henry  Fitz  Richard 
Walter  de  Pavilly 
Matthew  Wake 
Robert  de  Saliceto 
Roger  de  Sumery 
Hugh  le  Poer 
Thomas  de  Canvill 

Ralph  Pirot 

William  de  NeviU 
Joslan  de  Nevill 
Richard  Luvel 
Norman  de  Arescy 


Ser- 
vice 
owed 
1 
7 
1 
1 
1 
50 


Knights 

fur- 
nished 

1 


Quit,  Oxford. 

2  serg.  Quit,  Dors,  and  Somers. 

1  Quit,  Wilts. 

2  serg.  Quit,  Wilts. 

2  serg.  owes  20s,  1  fee,  Notts,  and  Derby. 

3  Quit,  Staff. 
1  serg.  Quit,  Heref. 

1  Quit,  Essex  and  Hert. 

1  kn'ht  Quit,  Essex  and  Hert.,  Cant,  and 

2  serg.  Hunt. 

1  Quit,  Wilts. 

1  Quit,  Kent. 

1  Quit,  Dors,  and  Som. 

1  Quit,  Line. 

1  kn'ht  Quit,  Essex  and  Hert.,  Bucks  and 

2  serg.  Bedf. 

1  Quit,  Hants. 

1  Quit,  Notts,  and  Derby. 

1  Quit,  Cant,  and  Hunt. 

1  Quit,  Essex  and  Hert. 

7  serg.  Quit,  Oxford. 

1  Quit,  Wilts. 

2  serg.  Quit,  Notts,  and  Derby. 

The  number  of  knights  furnished  is  given  in  Scutage  Rolls,  no.  2. 

The  number  of  knights  owed  and  the  fact  that  each  tenant  is  quit 


1 
18 

20 

17 


Robert  de  Pinkney 

Michael  de  Columbar'  1 

John  de  Heriz  4 

Nigel  de  Amundevill  3% 

Baldwin  de  Rivera  5 

Henry  de  Oilli  32% 

Albreda  des  Boterels  8% 

Robert  de  Pavilly  4 


196 


UNDER  JOHN  AND  HENRY  III 

The  lack  of  money  in  the  treasury  is  shown  by  the 
means  employed  to  raise  the  sums  necessary  for  such  a 
campaign  as  this.  In  August  the  justiciar  of  Ireland 
was  to  forward  at  once  all  the  money  possible.89  The 
farms  of  towns  on  the  Welsh  frontier  which  were  not  due 
till  September  were  ordered  on  August  1  to  be  paid  imme- 
diately.90 The  aid  granted  by  the  prelates  in  April  had 
not  been  entirely  paid,  but  all  that  had  been  received 
was  sent  to  the  king  ;91  in  August  Henry  III  wrote  to  each 
of  the  prelates,  asking  that  the  part  in  arrears  be  paid 
without  delay  and  complaining  bitterly  that  this  was  the 
third  time  he  had  been  obliged  to  write  about  it.92 

The  rate  of  scutage  was  reduced  to  twenty  shillings 
though  the  campaign  had  lasted  two  months.  This 
reduction  was  probably  due  to  the  high  rates  of  the  pre- 
ceding years,  and  is  an  indication  that  the  tenants 
exercised  a  certain  control  over  the  scutage.  The  levy 
was  put  in  charge  on  September  6,  before  the  close  of 
the  campaign.93  It  amounted  to  £1,547  14s  lid,  of 
which  £828  2s  7d  were  paid  in  1232  and  1233.94  It  was 

of  scutage  are  taken  from  the  Pipe  Roll,  16  Henry  III.  I  am  not 
certain  that  in  each  case  I  have  the  total  number  of  fees  held  by 
each  tenant,  but  each  held  at  least  as  many  as  given  here. 

89  Close  Rolls,  I,  599. 

9o/6Jd.,  538. 

si  Ibid.,  544. 

92  Ibid.,  598.    In  July,  the  king  was  trying  to  borrow  1,200  marks 
(Pat.  Rolls,  II,  440). 

93  On  September  6,  writs  de  scutagio  habendo  were  issued  to  tenants 
(Scutage   Rolls,   no.   2)    and   this    is    probably   the   date    when    the 
scutage  was  ordered. 

a*  The   account   appears   in   the   Pipe   Roll   of   16    Henry   III,   as 

follows:  Scutage  at  20s 

£  s  d 

Clerical  tenants 641  6      0 

Thirty-two  lay  tenants  (each  5  or  more  fees)       604  17  -4 

Other  lay  tenants  (each  fewer  than  5  fees,  etc.)    301  11       7 

Total 1547  14  11 

Paid,  16  and  17  Henry  III  .             .         .         .     828  2      7 

197 


STUDIES  IN  TAXATION 

the  composition  for  service;  no  fines  are  recorded.  Those 
who  served  did  not  pay  scutage.  They  received  writs  de 
scutagio  habendo**  and  if  necessary,  the  sheriff  assisted 
the  tenant  in  chief  with  distraint.96  The  tenant  in  chief 
who  compounded  was  also  allowed  to  collect  scutage  from 
his  tenants  in  order  to  respond  at  the  exchequer.97  Thus 
the  tax  fell  back  on  the  rear-vassal.  An  interesting 
feature  of  this  levy  is  that  in  several  counties  those  jurati 
ad  arma  who  held  of  the  king  and  did  not  take  part  in 
the  campaign  were  fined,  the  assessment  being  made  by 
the  sheriff  and  another  official  appointed  by  the  king.98 
Some  of  the  towns  which  were  summoned  to  send  men  to 
the  army  fined  to  escape  service,  but  the  amounts  paid 
were  merely  nominal.99 

The  tenant  was  still  liable  to  be  distrained  for  his 
scutage  by  the  sheriff.  The  amount  for  which  he  was 
responsible  was  determined  by  the  number  of  fees  for 
which  he  customarily  paid.  Additional  fees  created  by 
him  were  not  bound  to  contribute  to  the  royal  exchequer. 
Further,  if  the  sheriff  distrained  for  payment,  he  dis- 
trained the  goods  of  the  tenant  in  chief,  not  those  of  the 
rear-vassal.  Thus  the  sheriffs  were  ordered  to  distrain 
for  the  scutage  of  Elveyn,  but  only  for  as  many  fees  as 

Of  the  sum  charged  against  lay  tenants,  each  fewer  than  5  fees,  etc., 
£120  were  against  tenants  on  the  honors  of  Boulogne,  Peverel,  Lan- 
caster, and  Brittany.  This  leaves  about  £180  against  the  lesser 
tenants  in  chief,  or  180  fees.  Of  the  total  amount  recorded  as  paid, 
£527  19s  4d  were  paid  by  the  clergy, 
as  Scutage  Rolls,  No.  2. 

96  Thomas,  earl  of   Warwick,   for   the   army  of   Elveyn,   "in   quo 
habuit  milites  suos  per  preceptum  regis"  (Close  Rolls,  I,  570). 

97  "R.  Sarresbiriensis  episcopus  habet  literas  regis  quod  per  manum 
suani   colligat  scutagium   regi   debitum  etc.   pro  exercitu  de   Elvein 
ad  respondendum  regi  in  octav'  S.  Andree  anno  etc.  xvi"  (Fine  Roll, 
16  Henry  III,  m.  7)  ;  other  similar  entries  on  this  roll. 

98  Close  Rolls,  I,  561,  597. 

99  Derby,    £4;    Merleberg,   5m;    Nottingham,    10m    (ibid.,    I,    542, 
545,  548). 

198 


UNDER  JOHN  AND  HENRY  III 

a  tenant  "is  held  to  respond  at  the  exchequer"  and  to 
distrain  only  those  tenants  who  held  of  the  king  in  chief.100 
Two  men  were  charged  with  scutage  in  Wittshire,  but  it 
appeared  that  they  held  of  Robert  de  Mandevill,  not  of 
the  king,  and  the  roll  states  that  Robert  ought  to  acquit 
them.101 

THE  FORTIETH,  1232 

In  1232,  the  king  asked  for  an  aid  to  pay  his  debts 
occasioned  by  the  campaign  in  Gascony.102  He  was  really 
short  of  money.  At  the  beginning  of  the  year,  Peter, 
count  of  Brittany,  had  arrived  in  England  and  asked  for 
aid.  On  March  10,  Henry  agreed  to  pay  him  3,000  marks 
and  as  security  deposited  his  plate  and  jewels  with 
the  Templars.103  He  also  borrowed  of  Florentine  and 
Sienese  money  lenders,  2,420  marks,  promising  to  repay 
the  loan  at  Michaelmas ;  failing  to  keep  his  word,  he  was 
to  pay  interest  at  ten  per  cent,  per  month.104  The  debt 
to  Count  Peter  was  paid  in  the  summer,  but  in  September, 
the  king  agreed  to  pay  him  6,000  marks  more  at  Michael- 

100  "Mandatum  est  vicecomiti  Cornubiae  quod,  occasione  praecepti 
regis,  quod  ei  fecit  de  districcione  facienda  pro  scutagio  exercitus  de 
Elvein,  nullum  distringat  nisi  pro  tot  feodis  quot  regi  tenetur  respon- 
dere    ad    scaccarium,    et    pro    eodem    scutagio    non    distringat,    nisi 
tantum  eos  qui  de  rege  tenent  in  capite."    The  same  order  was  issued 
to  other  sheriffs  (Close  Rolls,  II,  10). 

101  "Anno  regis  Henrici,  filii  regis  Johannis,  in  residuo  de  Wilt- 
esira,   post   Devonesiram,   Robertus   Maudut,   dimidiam   marcam   de 
tertia  parte  1  feodi  de  scutagio  de  Elevein.    Willelmus  Comin,  dimid- 
iam marcam  de  tertia  parte  1  feodi  de  eodem  scutagio.     Sed  Rob- 
ertus  de   Mandeville   debet   eos    acquietare,   quia   Robertus    Maudut 
debet  tenere  feodum  illud  de  eodem  Roberto  de  Mandeville  .  .  .  et 
Willelmus   Comin   debet  tenere   feodum  illud   de  eodem   Roberto  de 
Mandeville"  (Red  Book,  II,  770;  Pipe  Roll,  16  Henry  III,  m.  6  d). 

102  Wend.,    IV,    233-234;    "pro    debitis,    quibus    comiti    Britanniae 
tenebatur  astrictus"  (ibid.,  249)  ;  see  above,  p.  181. 

103  Pat.  Rolls,  II,  465,  490. 
10*  Ibid.,  514,  515. 

199 


STUDIES  IN  TAXATION 

mas.los    About  this  time  the  Jews  paid  a  tallage  of  10,000 
marks.106 

There  were  two  or  three  meetings  of  the  council  to 
consider  this  aid.  On  March  7,  the  magnates  assembled 
in  response  to  a  general  summons,  but  for  some  reason 
many  ecclesiastics  were  absent.  The  king  asked  for  the 
aid  and  the  earl  of  Chester  replied  for  the  lay  tenants 
that  they  had  personally  served  with  the  king  in  France 
and  hence  did  not  legally  owe  him  any  aid.  With  the 
king's  permission,  the  laity  then  withdrew.  The  clergy 
who  were  present  asked  for  a  delay  because  many  were 
absent.  So  the  council  was  prorogued  till  after  Easter.101 
A  second  meeting  of  the  earls  and  barons  was  held  at 
London  after  that  festival,  but  it  is  not  known  what  was 
done.10*  In  September,  a  council  composed  of  the  prel- 
ates, the  earls,  and  the  barons  granted  an  aid  of  a  fortieth 
of  personal  property.  If  the  lesser  tenants  in  chief  were 
present  at  any  of  these  councils,  they  were  included  in 
the  term  barones,  for  they  were  not  separately  mentioned 
as  forming  part  of  the  council.105 

105  Pat .  Rolls,  II,  490,  501. 

loe  Cat.  Pat.  Rolls,  I,  12-13,  March,  1233. 

107  Wend.,  above. 

108  "Comites  et  barones  qui  de  mandato  regis  convenerunt  apud 
London  a  die  Paschse  in  tres  septimanas''  (Pat.  Rolls,  II,  473). 

109  "de  communi  consilio  et  unanimi  assensu  omnium  magnatum  de 
regno  nostro,  tarn  episcoporum,  quam  comitum,  baronum,  abbatum 
et  priorum,  concessum  fuit"  (Close  Rolls,  II,  311);  Shirley,  I,  415; 
"episcopi  et  alii  ecclesiarum  praelati  cum  proceribus  regni"   (Wend., 
IV,  249);  Theok.,  p.  87;  Dunst.,  p.  131;  Gerv.  Cant.,  II,  129;  Osney, 
pp.  73-74;  Wykes,  pp.  72,  74.     Notices  which   include  more  classes 
than  those  given  here  are  merely  descriptions  of  the  taxpayers,  that 
is,  of  an  ideal  council,  not  of  the  actual  members  of  the  council;  thus 
the  writ  of  collection  says  that  the  tax  was  granted  by  the  "archi- 
episcopi,  episcopi,  abbates,  priores,  et  clerici  terras  habentes  qui  ad 
ecclesias  suas  non  pertinent,  comites,  barones,  milites,  liberi  homines 
et  villani  de  regno  nostro"  (Select  Charters,  p.  360;  Wend.,  IV,  254). 
The  description  given  in   Waverley,  p.  310,  is  probably  taken  from 
the  writ.     Stubbs   (Select  Charters,  p.  360)   says  that  if  the  words 

200 


UNDER  JOHN  AND  HENRY  III 

The  levy  was  paid  by  the  following  men: 

1.  All  laymen  holding  of  lay  tenants  or  of  the  king 
down  to  and  including  villeins.     The  royal  demesne  was 
included,  though  there  was  no  special  reference  to  it  in 
the  writ.     As  the  fortieth  was  assessed  on  the  men  of 
Pevensey,    Hastings,    and    Rye,    it    is    evident    that    no 
exemption  was  intended  for  the  king's  lands.110     A  refer- 
ence to  some  boroughs  might  perhaps  be  taken  to  mean 
that  they  were  excepted.     The  assessors   were  ordered 
not  to  demand  the  fortieth  from  the  burgesses  of  Grimsby 
in  Lincolnshire,  and  Scarborough  in  Yorkshire,  except  on 
those  chattels  which  they  held  outside  their  boroughs.111 
But  this  meant  probably  that  the  assessment  would  be 
made   in   the   borough   by    special    officials,    or   that    the 
borough  might  fine  in  a  lump  sum  for  its  tax.     In  1225 
there  were  somewhat  similar  cases.     London  merchants 
having  goods  in  other  counties  were  allowed  to  pay  the 
fifteenth  on  those  goods  when  the  fifteenth  of  London  was 
collected.112 

2.  All    churchmen   except   the   beneficed   clergy   who 

of  the  writ  "are  to  be  understood  literally,  the  freeholders  and  villeins 
must  have  been  consulted  in  the  shire  moots,  or  else  the  lords  must 
have  been  supposed  to  represent  their  own  villein-tenants  in  the 
'Commune  Consilium.' "  Aside  from  this  expression  in  the  writ, 
there  is  nothing  to  suggest  that  the  first  alternative  is  true.  An 
expression  in  the  king's  letter  to  the  abbot  of  Coggeshal  describing 
the  grant  of  the  fortieth  suggests  that  it  was  understood  that  the 
lords  represented  their  tenants.  The  king  states  "concessum  fuit 
nobis  ab  ipsis  (the  magnates)  auxilium,  scilicet,  quadragesima  pars 
omnium  mobilium  suorum  et  aliorum  de  regno  nostro"  (Close  Rolls, 
II,  311).  The  expression  "suorum  et  aliorum"  means  the  goods  of 
the  tenants  in  chief  and  those  of  their  men;  cf.  for  a  similar  use  of 
these  pronouns,  and  in  this  sense  exactly,  the  writ  to  tenants  to 
assist  in  ploughing  the  king's  demesne:  "faciatis  auxilium  de  carucis 
vestris  et  aliis,  ad  terras  nostras  .  .  .  excolendas"  (Pat.  Rolls,  I,  323). 

no  Close  Rolls,  II,  297. 

in  Ibid.,  307,  311. 

112  Rot.  Litt.  Claus.,  II,  26a. 

201 


STUDIES  IN  TAXATION 

were  specially  exempted  in  the  writ.113  With  this  excep- 
tion, the  tax  was  demanded  not  merely  of  the  churchmen 
who  were  military  tenants,  but  also  of  all  sorts  of  religious 
houses  and  orders.  Those  who  wished  to  escape  assess- 
ment of  their  property  had  to  get  a  writ  to  that  effect 
from  the  king.  The  order  of  Sempringham  obtained  such 
a  writ;114  as  also  the  brothers  of  St.  Lazarus  for  their 
own  property,  though  the  goods  of  their  men  were 
assessed.115  The  opposition  of  the  Hospitallers,  Templars, 
and  Cistercians  resulted  in  a  delay  in  assessment.11'  Most 
of  these  orders  probably  paid  a  lump  sum  as  a  fine  for 
their  fortieth,  with  the  possible  exception  of  the  Cister- 
cians who  may  have  paid  nothing  in  the  end.  While  the 
tax  was  being  collected,  the  king  wrote  to  the  Cistercian 
abbot  of  Coggeshal  saying  he  had  never  heard  that  the 
Cistercians  should  be  exempt  from  this  sort  of  a  general 
subsidy  and  begging  him  to  make  an  aid  as  others  were 
doing,  even  if  it  were  not  a  fortieth.117 

There  was  an  effort  in  the  writ  to  make  a  clearer  state- 
ment of  the  goods  to  be  assessed.  Instead  of  enumerating 
those  excepted,  the  writ  named  the  kinds  of  property  to 
be  taxed,  grain,  plows,  oxen,  sheep,  hogs,  and  work 
horses.115  Nevertheless  there  were  complaints  that  the 

us  Select  Charters,  p.  360;  Close  Rolls,  II,  155. 

11*  Close  Rolls,  II,  292. 

"5/&id.,  pp.  290,  291,  295,  303;  III,  114.  Similar  cases  are  given 
in  these  references. 

n6/6td.,  II,  284,  285,  292,  293,  294,  300.  The  Hospitallers  paid 
300m:  "prior  Hospital'  S.  Johannis  Jerosolim'  in  Anglia  r  c  de  CCC 
marc,  pro  quadragesima  mobilium  suorum  et  hominum  suorum;  in 
thesauro  liberavit  et  quietus  est"  (Pipe  Roll,  18  Henry  III,  Lond. 
and  Midd.,  m.  7)  ;  the  Templars  paid  300m  and  the  order  of  Semp- 
ringham £100  (Fine  Roll,  IT  Henry  III,  m.  6,  9). 

i"  "Rogamus  attentius  quatinus,  etsi  non  nomine  quadragesimae 
subsidium  consimile  aliis  de  regno  nostro  nobis  duxeritis  impenden- 
dum,  ad  tale  et  tana  efficax  auxilium  nobis  faciendum  de  bonis  vestris 
manum  nobis  porrigere  velitis"  (Close  Rolls,  II,  311). 

118 Select  Charters,  above;  Osney,  p.  73;  for  a  part  of  a  roll  of 

202 


UNDER  JOHN  AND  HENRY  III 

justices  assessed  goods  not  liable  and  orders  were  issued 
to  them  to  note  carefully  the  taxable  property  described.115 
The  method  of  assessment  differed  somewhat  from  that 
employed  in  1225.  To  each  county  was  sent  by  the  king 
a  certain  number  of  men  called  assessors  and  collectors. 
Sometimes  they  went  through  the  county  in  pairs.  The 
number  varied:  in  most  of  the  counties  there  were  four; 
in  several  there  were  two;  in  Lincolnshire  and  Norfolk, 
there  were  six;  in  Yorkshire,  eleven;  in  Suffolk,  eight.120 
Before  these  collectors  the  sheriff  summoned  the  men  of 
the  vill  at  certain  places  on  certain  dates.  Four  of  the 
vill  were  chosen,  who  with  the  reeve  in  the  presence  of 
the  royal  commissioners  swore  to  the  value  of  each  man's 
chattels  in  the  vill,  except  their  own,  which  were  appraised 
in  the  same  way  by  two  other  men  of  the  vill.121  A  roll 
of  the  vill  was  drawn  up,  in  which  was  stated  the  barony 
or  liberty  to  which  each  man  belonged.  As  soon  as  the 
assessment  was  completed,  a  copy  of  the  roll  was  sent  to 
the  exchequer.  The  manner  of  collection  differed  also. 
Those  men  having  part  of  their  baronies  or  a  liberty  in 
the  vill  were  allowed  to  collect  the  fortieth,  but  they  paid 
the  money  to  the  royal  commissioners,  not  to  the  exche- 
quer.122 If  they  did  not  collect  it,  the  sheriff  was  to  dis- 

assessment,  see  Niemeyer,  "An  Assessment  for  the  Fortieth  of  1232," 
in  E.  H.  R.,  XXIV,  733-735. 

us  Close  Rolls,  II,  288,  290,  291.  To  the  assessors  in  Suffolk, 
"diligentius  inspicientes  verba  brevis  eis  direct!  de  prsedicta  quad- 
ragesima  assidenda  et  colligenda." 

120  Ibid.,  156-160. 

121  That  the  men  of  the  township  and  not  merely  the  four  chosen 
men    came   before   the    commissioners    is    shown    by   two    facts:    the 
order    states     "mandavimus     vicecomiti  .  .  .  quod     singulas     villatas 
comitatus  sui  certis  diebus  et  locis  ...  ad  mandatum  nostrum  coram 
vobis  venire  faciat"   (Select  Charters,  above)  ;  the  manner  of  assess- 
ment of  the  goods  of  the  four  chosen  men  indicates  the  presence  of 
the  other  men  of  the  vill. 

122  This  was  the  provision  made  in  the  writ  of  collection;  cf.  the 
order  to  these  men  in  Yorkshire  (Close  Rolls,  II,  299). 

203 


STUDIES  IN  TAXATION 

train  those  who  were  assessed  to  pay  it  to  the  collectors. 
The  money  was  deposited  in  a  safe  place,  such  as  a  castle, 
sealed  with  the  seals  of  the  sheriff  and  the  collectors,  till 
it  was  later  forwarded  to  London.123  The  sheriff  cared 
for  the  transportation.124  The  roll  of  receipts  was  for- 
warded as  soon  as  the  money  was  collected.125  No  one  was 
to  be  assessed  unless  he  had  at  least  forty  pence  worth 
of  property.  The  writs  of  collection  were  sent  out 
September  28  and  the  assessment  began  in  October.126 

Some  men  were  not  compelled  to  submit  to  assessment 
and  collection  by  royal  officials.  Several  churchmen 
obtained  writs  of  exemption.  The  Hospitallers  assessed 
their  property  by  their  own  men  and  a  number  of  bishops 
and  heads  of  religious  houses  did  likewise — the  bishops  of 
Ely,  Hereford,  Durham,  Worcester,  the  abbots  of  Read- 
ing, Ramsey,  and  St.  Mary's  of  York,  and  the  prior  of 
Wenlac.127  A  lay  tenant  also  might  obtain  this  privi- 
lege.128 A  powerful  baron  seems  to  have  been  able  to 
prevent  the  assessors  from  taxing  his  men.  In  March, 
1235,  the  assessors  in  Yorkshire  were  ordered  to  assess 
and  collect  the  fortieth  on  the  lands  of  W.,  earl  of  Albe- 
marle,  John,  earl  of  Lincoln,  and  Richard  de  Percy,  and 
the  king  requested  these  tenants  to  allow  this  to  be  done.128 
This  order  was  issued  over  two  years  after  the  tax  had 
been  granted.  Richard  refused  and  the  tax  was  not 
assessed  on  his  men  till  September,  1236,  when  he  per- 

123  Close  Rolls,  II,  255,  300;  Cal.  Pat.  Rolls,  I,  33,  42,  45. 

124  Cal.  Pat.  Rolls,  I,  33,  37,  42,  45,  60. 

125  Close  Rolls,  II,  295. 

126  Ibid.,   156. 

127  Ibid.,  II,  160,  283,  285,  287,  288,  290,  294,  301.     Such  tenants 
might  be  allowed  also  to  pay  the  tax  to  the  king  direct,  not  to  the 
county  assessors;  the  bishop  of  Ely  was  permitted  to  do  this  (Close 
Rolls,  II,  301,  302).    Thus  the  royal  officials  would  be  kept  entirely 
off  their  lands. 

128  Ibid.,  295,  Richard  Marshal. 

129  Cal.  Pat.  Rolls,  I,  124. 

204 


UNDER  JOHN  AND  HENRY  III 

mitted  it  to  be  done.130  Distraint  was  however  employed 
to  compel  payment.131  The  greater  part  of  the  tax  was 
turned  in  during  1233  and  1234. 13~  But  some  accounts 
were  unpaid  for  a  long  time.13S  The  total  amount 
received  was  £16,475  Os  9d,134  a  much  less  proportionate 
yield  than  was  received  from  the  fifteenth.  There  is  no 
record  that  the  money  was  placed  in  the  care  of  special 
officials  or  held  as  a  special  fund,  as  was  the  case  with  the 
previous  tax  on  moveables. 

Certain  points  of  difference  between  the  fifteenth  and 
the  fortieth  may  be  noticed.  Some  of  the  changes  in  the 
assessment  of  the  latter  were  evidently  the  result  of  the 
experience  gained  in  1225.  The  change  in  the  descrip- 
tion of  the  goods  to  be  taxed  is  a  case  in  point,  as  it  was 
an  attempt  to  word  the  writ  more  clearly.  The  goods 
taxed  were  in  both  cases  the  same.  The  provision  in 
1232  that  no  one  was  to  be  taxed  who  had  not  at  least 
forty  pence  worth  of  property  was  introduced  undoubt- 
edly because  of  complaints  of  the  poor  in  1225,  when  the 
king  issued  a  special  order  not  to  tax  them.135  The 
machinery  of  assessment  was  simplified:  the  elected 
knights  of  the  county  were  dropped  and  for  the  individual 
oaths  of  the  men  of  the  vill  was  substituted  the  assessment 
by  the  reeve  and  four  men.  The  interests  of  the  tenants 
in  chief  were  protected  in  a  different  way:  in  1225, 
though  the  tax  was  collected  by  the  reeve  and  four  men, 
the  bailiffs  swore  to  the  value  of  their  lords'  chattels ;  in 
1232,  the  men  of  the  vill  assessed  all  the  goods,  but  the 

13°  Col.  Pat.  Rolls,  I,  159;  a  similar  case  of  failure  to  collect  on 
account  of  the  opposition  of  the  tenant  (Close  Rolls,  III,  184). 
isi  Madox,  II,  193,  n.  z;  Close  Rolls,  III,  404. 

132  Most  of  the  notices  of  payment  are  in  those  years   (Cal.  Pat. 
RoUs,  I). 

133  Madox,  above,  from  27  Henry  III. 
is*  Red  Book,  III,  1064. 

iss  Pat.  Rolls,  I,  572. 

205 


STUDIES  IN  TAXATION 

bailiffs  were  allowed  to  collect  the  tax  on  their  lords'  lands. 
The  sheriff  remained  subordinate  to  the  collectors. 

The  campaign  against  Richard  Marshal  in  1233  was 
waged  partly  with  the  aid  of  tenants  in  chief  and  partly 
by  mercenaries.136  No  scutage  was  levied.  Fines  were 
however  assessed  on  tenants  for  failure  to  perform  service 
and  for  having  their  scutage.  Some  of  these  fines  were 
paid,  but  many  stand  in  the  roll  either  unpaid  or  par- 
doned. Important  tenants  paid  fines,137  but  probably 
these  payments  were  made  early  in  the  campaign  and 
when  it  was  known  that  no  scutage  would  be  taken,  they 
were  stopped.138  That  in  the  end  a  scutage  was  not 
levied  indicates  that  the  king  recognized  the  necessity 
of  consulting  the  tenants  in  chief  before  declaring  a 
scutage  which  he  was  unable  to  levy  at  will.  He  took 
measures  to  protect  against  loss  a  tenant  who  fined  and 
who  might  not  be  able  to  recoup  himself  by  taking  a 
scutage  from  his  men.  The  bishop  of  Lincoln  made  a 
fine  of  £110.  If  the  scutage  did  not  run,  the  king  prom- 
ised him  letters  to  his  men  to  make  him  a  reasonable  aid 
to  pay  his  fine.  This  also  shows  that  the  scutage  fell 

136  The  tenants  were  summoned  to  meet  in  August  and  again  on 
November  2  (Wend.,  IV,  271,  277;  Cal.  Pat.  Roll*,  I,  22,  24);  on 
mercenaries  (Wend.,  IV,  269,  272,  279,  280;  Dunst.,  p.  136). 

is?  Madox,  I,  617,  n.  e;  661,  n.  /;  Excerpta,  I,  251 ;  Close  Rolls, 
III,  116,  117,  129;  Pipe  Roll,  18  Henry  III,  passim,  under  the  title 
"Nova  Oblata."  The  bishop  of  London  fined  in  60m;  40m  were 
pardoned  and  he  paid  20m.  The  abbot  of  Abingdon  fined  in  100m, 
of  which  he  paid  50m;  the  bishop  of  Bath  fined  in  £90,  of  which 
he  paid  £45  and  was  pardoned  £45;  the  abbot  of  Ramsey  fined  in 
20m  and  paid  it;  the  abbot  of  Tavistock,  in  25m  and  paid  it  (Pipe 
Roll,  18  Henry  III,  m.  7,  9  d,  13  d,  14,  15  d). 

138  The  occasional  introduction  of  the  clause,  if  scutage  run,  shows 
that  the  king  began  to  collect  the  fines  before  the  close  of  the  cam- 
paign. By  the  fine  the  tenant  escaped  service  and  had  his  scutage 
from  his  tenants,  although  the  latter  provision  is  not  always 
introduced. 

206 


UNDER  JOHN  AND  HENRY  III 

back  on  the  rear-vassal,  a  fact  which  is  further  illustrated 
by  the  pardons  for  scutage  which  it  was  expected  might 
be  issued  to  sub-tenants.  If  the  rear-vassal  was  pardoned 
his  scutage,  the  amount  due  from  him  was  deducted  from 
his  lord's  fine.13£  The  pardoning  and  non-collection  of 
fines  when  scutage  did  not  run  indicate  that  the  fine  and 
scutage  were  identical  in  character,  the  commutation  of 
service. 

From  1232  to  1235  no  general  aid  was  granted  to  the 
king.  In  1234,  he  levied  a  tallage.140  It  was  taken  in 
the  customary  way.  Towns  and  boroughs  compounded 
for  it.  The  assessment  was  made  in  each  county  by  a 
committee  of  royal  officials ;  one  of  these  was  sometimes 
the  sheriff;  royal  judges  also  were  used  in  this  work.14: 
Sometimes  the  fine  which  a  town  offered  for  its  tallage 

139  Madox,  I,  617,  n.  e;  "W.  Wigorn'  episcopus  r  c  de  C  li.  de  fine 
pro  eodem,  ita  quod  in  fine  allocabuntur  ei  feoda  ilia  que  de  eo 
tenentur  et  sunt  in  manu  regis  et  similiter  feoda  illorum  qui  de  illo 
tenent  et  quorum  scutagia  rex  eis  perdonabit  vel  pro  habendo 
auxilio  illorum  feodorum  si  scutagium  non  assideatur.  In  thesauro 
nichil  et  in  perdonis  ipsi  episcopo  C  li.  per  breve  regis  et  quietus 
est"  (Pipe  Roll,  above,  m.  10  d) ;  "J.  Bathon'  episcopus  r  c  de 
quater  xx  et  x  libris  ut  sit  quietus  de  militibus  mittendis  ad  exercitum 
regis  contra  R.  marescallum  et  pro  habendo  scutagio  suo  ejusdem 
exercitus  de  feodis  mih'tum  que  de  rege  tenet  in  capite  ita  quod  si 
rex  aliquid  de  scutagio  illo  perdonaverit  alicui  allocabitur  ei  in  fine 
predicto  sicut  continetur  in  originali"  (ibid.,  m.  13  d). 

i4oWykes,  p.  77;  Osney,  p.  77;  Cal  Pat.  Rolls,  I,  36;  Pipe  Roll, 
18  Henry  III;  Madox,  I,  707,  n.  k;  743,  n.  p,  q. 

1*1  Thus  the  sheriff  is  mentioned  as  one  of  the  tallagers  in  York, 
Notts,  and  Derby,  Hants,  Northamp.,  Line.,  Oxford,  Bucks  and  Bedf. 
(Pipe  Roll,  18  Henry  III)  (in  some  of  these  cases  it  is  the  under- 
sheriff  who  is  mentioned).  In  Northampton,  the  tallage  was  laid  by 
the  sheriff,  John  de  Ulecot  and  Robert  de  Salceto.  John  acted  as 
a  judge  in  1235  (Cal.  Pat.  Rolls,  I,  127);  Robert  was  a  justice  in 
eyre  in  1234  (ibid.,  77).  In  Notts,  and  Derby  one  of  the  tallagers 
was  William  Basset;  one  of  the  justices  in  eyre  in  those  counties  in 
1232  was  a  William  Basset  (Close  Rolls,  II,  136). 

207 


STUDIES  IN  TAXATION 

was  raised  by  the  king;142  in  several  cases  the  tallage  laid 
by  the  justices  was  reduced.142 

THE  AID  OF  1235 

In  the  spring  of  1235,  when  Isabella,  John's  second 
daughter,  was  married  to  Frederick  II,  Henry  III  prom- 
ised her  a  dowry  of  30,000  marks.  As  she  was  not  the 
king's  eldest  daughter,  the  feudal  aid  was  not  legally 
due.144  To  help  raise  this  sum,  the  great  council  was 
summoned  and  it  granted  an  aid  in  the  form  of  a  scutage 
at  two  marks  per  fee.145  This  council  was  composed  of  the 
lay  and  clerical  tenants  in  chief.14'  Though  the  eccle- 

142  The  burgesses  of  Oxford  offered  100m,  but  the  king  refused  to 
accept  less  than  £100  (Madox,  I,  743,  n.  p).  The  burgesses  paid 
100m  and  the  king  gave  them  the  other  50m  "ad  villam  suam 
claudendam"  (Pipe  Roll,  18  Henry  III,  Oxf.,  m.  3). 

i«  Close  Rolls,  II,  389,  391,  393,  396,  401,  407.  Some  towns 
responded  for  their  tallage  to  the  sheriff;  others  responded  directly 
to  the  exchequer,  e.g.  Southampton  (ibid.,  459).  The  amount  of  the 
tallage  charged  in  21  counties  in  the  Pipe  Rolls  of  18  and  19  Henry 
III  is  about  2,200  marks.  London  does  not  appear  in  the  rolls  of 
these  years  as  tallaged. 

144  "casus  in  quibus  licet  dominis  auxilia  .  .  .  exigere  ab  hominibus 
suis,  ...  si  primogenitam  filiam  suam  maritaverit"  (Glanvill,  lib.  ix, 
cap.   8,   in   Select   Charters,   p.    163) ;    Magna   Carta,   cap.    12.     Cf. 
however  the  testament  of  Elzear,  seigneur  of  Uzes,  of  1254:  remission 
of  all  "tallias  .  .  .  preterquam  in  iv  casibus,  scilicet  .  .  .  vel  maritare 
filiam  vel  sororem  suam"  (Hist.  Languedoc,  VIII,  No.  400,  col.  1330, 
in  H.  See,  Clauses  rurales,  p.  485,  note) ;  here  it  is  not  restricted  to 
the  eldest  daughter.     (For  this  reference,  I  am  indebted  to  Professor 
Adams.)     No  aid  had  been  levied  when  Joanna,  John's  eldest  daugh- 
ter, had  been  married  to  the  king  of  Scotland  in  1219;  a  tallage  had 
been  levied  on  the  Jews  (Receipt  Roll,  Auditor's,  no.  1,  5  Henry  III). 

145  It  is  called  "auxilium"  and  "scutagium"  in  the  writs    (Select 
Charters,  p.  364;  Close  Rolls,  III,  186,  189);  also,  "generale  scuta- 
gium"  (Dunst.,  p.  142);  "tallagium"   (Theok.,  p.  97);  "carucagium" 
(Matthew  Paris,  III,  327);  "scutagium  vetus  et  novum"    (Burton, 
p.  364). 

146  "archiepiscopi,  episcopi,   abbates,  priores,  comites,  barones,  et 
omnes   alii  de  regno  nostro  Angliae  qui  de  nobis   tenent   in   capite 
spontanea  voluntate  sua  et  sine  consuetudine  concesserunt" ;  "comites, 

208 


UNDER  JOHN  AND  HENRY  III 

siastics  met  probably  at  the  same  time  as  the  lay  barons,147 
they  seem  to  have  dealt  separately  with  the  king.  They 
had  a  different  method  of  collection  and  they  received 
letters  patent  promising  that  their  grant  should  not  form 
a  precedent  for  future  levies.148  This  then  was  a  general 
tax  on  knights'  fees  and  was  taken  by  the  authority  of  the 
great  council.  Theoretically,  however,  each  tenant  made 
the  grant  for  his  own  fees.149 

The  levy  was  as  follows : 

1.  A  scutage  at  two  marks  on  all  fees  of  laymen,  half 
to  be  paid  at  Michaelmas,  1235,  and  the  other  half  at 
the  following  Easter.  The  writs  for  collection  were 
issued  July  17.15C  Special  machinery  was  employed. 
Two  knights  were  chosen  in  each  county  to  receive  the 
tax  which  was  collected  by  the  bailiffs  of  the  tenants  in 
chief.151  If  the  barons  were  unwilling  or  unable  to  force 

barones  et  omnes  alii  de  toto  regno  nostro"  (Close  Rolls,  III,  186, 
189);  "per  commune  consilium  regni  concessse"  (Madox,  I,  593,  n.  d). 
It  cannot  be  concluded  from  this  that  all  the  tenants  in  chief,  par- 
ticularly the  lesser  tenants,  were  present.  This  is  a  list  of  the  men 
who  in  theory  compose  the  great  council. 

14?  The  writs  of  collection  for  both  classes  were  sent  out  at  about 
the  same  time;  for  the  clergy,  July  10;  for  the  laity,  July  17  (Close 
Rolls,  above). 

"8  ibid.;  Madox,  I,  607,  n.  6;  Cal.  Pat.  Rolls,  I,  145. 

149  Thus  the  council  is  composed  of  all  the  tenants  in  chief.  Cf. 
the  writ  to  the  barons  of  the  exchequer  concerning  the  aid  due  from 
the  fee  of  a  tenant:  "pro  auxilio  quod  idem  Nicholaus  regi  concessit 
ad  Isabellam  sororem  regis  .  .  .  maritandam"  (Excerpta,  I,  438). 

iso  Select  Charters,  above;  Close  Rolls,  III,  189^.  The  first  half 
was  not  all  paid  at  Michaelmas  and  orders  were  issued  to  the  col- 
lectors to  pay  it  in  some  counties  on  the  morrow  of  Martinmas 
(November  12)  and  in  others  on  the  morrow  of  St.  Andrew  (Decem- 
ber 1)  (Fine  Roll,  19  Henry  III,  part  1,  m.  1).  This  was  not  carried 
out  and  the  half  was  ordered  paid  on  February  12,  1236  (ibid.,  20 
Henry  III,  m.  14).  Some  still  remained  due  (ibid.,  m.  13). 

isi  Select  Charters,  above;  Close  Rolls,  above.  In  Yorkshire  and 
Lincolnshire,  there  were  six  each.  A  roll  of  the  receipts  was  drawn 
up  by  the  collectors  and  sent  to  the  exchequer.  It  contained  the 
names  of  the  tenants,  the  amounts  paid  by  each,  and  the  names  of 

209 


STUDIES  IN  TAXATION 

their  tenants  to  pay  the  aid,  the  sheriff  distrained  the 
latter  to  pay  it  to  the  collectors.152  A  point  of  some 
importance,  showing  that  the  sheriff  did  not  customarily 
collect  from  the  rear-vassal,  is  that  tenants  often  paid 
the  whole  sum  due  from  them  to  the  sheriff  of  the  county 
where  lay  the  bulk  of  their  fees.  They  were  evidently 
following  the  usual  practice.153 

2.  A  scutage  at  the  same  rate  on  the  clerical  tenants 
in  chief.  Each  prelate  collected  and  paid  it  at  the 
exchequer.  The  sheriff  aided  with  distraint,  if  neces- 
sary.154 Some  of  the  clerical  tenants  made  a  fine  for 
their  aid  which  was  larger  than  the  aid  itself  would  have 
been.155  The  fine  was  doubtless  for  the  lands  which  they 
did  not  hold  by  military  tenure  and  was  taken  because 

the  persons  who  gave  the  money  to  the  collectors:  "Rotulus  collec- 
torum  auxilii  in  comitatu  Wiltes';  de  Ela  comitissa  Sar5  xlii  li.  iiii 
den.  per  manum  Petri  de  Salceto,  etc."  (Subsidies,  Bundle  196,  no.  2). 
In  this  roll  of  Wilts,  there  are  32  names.  The  persons  who  give  the 
money  to  the  collectors  (per  manum,  etc.)  are  different  for  each 
tenant;  they  are  probably  the  bailiffs  as  the  writs  of  collection  pro- 
vided. Twice  they  are  described:  "De  Johanne  de  Balun  xiii  sol. 
iiii  den.  per  Willelmum  prepositum;  de  Reginaldo  de  Moun  xiii  sol. 
iiii  den.  per  Johannem  hominem  suum."  Twice  the  tenant  is  said  to 
give  the  money  himself  to  the  collectors.  Thus  the  sheriff  did  not 
collect  the  aid. 

iss  Close  Rolls,  III,  329-330;  "et  si  predict!  senescalli  non  possint 
illos  distringere  qui  auxilium  illud  deberent  dominis  suis  ipse  (the 
sheriff)  eos  sine  dilatione  distringat  ad  predictum  auxilium  predictis 
militibus  solvendum  ad  opus  regis"  (Fine  Roll,  20  Henry  III,  m.  14) ; 
Madox,  II,  192,  n.  w;  193,  n.  z. 

isa  Thus  men  holding  in  Gloucestershire  paid  in  other  counties 
where  they  had  more  fees  (Bristol  and  Gloucester  Archaeological 
Society  Transactions,  XIII,  309). 

is*  Rotulorum  Originalium  in  Curia  Scaccarii  Abbreviatio,  Record 
Com.,  p.  1,  for  the  bishop  of  Winchester. 

IBS  «E.  archiepiscopus  Cantuar'  r  c  de  CCC  marcis  de  auxilio  con- 
cesso  ad  maritagium  imperatori  sororis  regis,  viz.,  de  C  marcis  ultra 
omnia  feoda  sua  que  non  debet  sicut  continetur  in  rotulo"  (Testa, 
p.  218b)  ;  the  abbot  of  St.  Albans  fined  in  50  marks  and  had  his 
scutage  (Fine  Roll,  20  Henry  III,  m.  11). 

210 


UNDER  JOHN  AND  HENRY  III 

the  king  levied  a  donum  upon  those  religious  houses  which 
did  not  hold  by  knights'  service.  All  tenants,  clerical  and 
lay,  were  to  pay  on  both  the  old  and  new  enfeoffment.156 

The  amount  realized  from  the  new  basis  of  assessment 
did  not  meet  the  expectations  of  the  exchequer.  It  was 
believed  that  many  fees  were  escaping  taxation.15' 
Measures  were  taken  to  prevent  this  loss  to  the  treasury. 
In  May,  1236,  the  sheriffs  were  ordered  to  report  to  the 
exchequer  the  number  of  fees  held  in  each  vill  by  the 
lesser  tenants ;  the  prelates  and  the  greater  lay  tenants 
were  to  make  similar  reports  by  vills  of  all  their  fees  and 
those  who  held  them.  All  land  held  by  military  service 
was  to  be  included.158  An  inquest  may  have  been  held  by 
the  sheriff  to  enable  him  to  make  out  his  report,  but  no 
orders  to  this  effect  exist.  The  sheriff  of  Lancashire 
reported  the  number  of  fees  of  the  honor  without  holding 
an  inquest,  and,  in  order  to  be  sure  that  no  mistake  had 

iseMadox,  I,  607,  n.  b;  Cal.  Pat.  Rolls,  I,  145;  Close  Rolls,  III, 
186,  189;  "generate  scutagium  .  .  .  non  solum  de  feodis  habitis  in 
capita  de  rege,  sed  etiam  de  aliis  cultis"  (Dunst.,  p.  142)  ;  "scutagium 
vetus  et  novum"  (Burton,  p.  364).  Round,  Commune  of  London, 
p.  275,  suggests  that  the  aid  of  1235  may  have  been  assessed  on  the 
returns  of  the  inquests  of  1212:  "in  the  case  of  Middlesex,  the 
returns  of  1212  were  made  the  basis  for  collecting  the  aid  for  the 
marriage  of  the  king's  sister,  in  1235,  the  same  personal  names 
appearing  in  both  lists."  It  should  be  observed  not  only  that  the 
same  personal  names  appear  in  both  lists,  but  that  they  appear  in 
the  same  order.  This  is  quite  unusual  and  suggests  that  the  inquest 
belongs  to  1235,  rather  than  to  1212. 

157  That  the  exchequer  expected  a  large  increase  in  the  tax  is 
indicated,  apart  from  the  fact  of  the  inquests,  by  the  statement, 
purporting  to  come  from  Stephen  de  Segrave  "qui  tune  temporis  fuit 
exulatus,  in  abbatia  de  Leycestria  latitans  et  moram  faciens,  assere- 
bat  et  affirmabat,  vetus  scutagium  ad  xxxii  milia  scuta  assummabatur 
et  irrotulabatur;  et  ad  tantumdem  plene  et  plane  potuit  novum 
scutagium  de  novis  terris  assummari  et  inrotulari"  (Burton,  p.  364). 

iss  Farrer,  Lane.  Inquests,  pp.  143-144;  Testa,  p.  44.  The  terms, 
"old  enfeoffment"  and  "new  enfeoffment"  are  probably  not  used  in 
the  technical  sense  employed  under  Henry  II.  By  them  is  meant  all 
land  held  by  military  tenure. 

211 


STUDIES  IN  TAXATION 

been  made,  he  sent  a  transcript  of  the  royal  writ  to  the 
keeper  of  the  honor  that  the  latter  might  report  from 
his  records.158  This  effort  to  obtain  detailed  information 
was  not  successful.  Some  tenants  apparently  did  not  try 
to  supply  it.  Arnold  de  Bosco  held  seven  fees  and  a  half 
of  the  earl  of  Leicester;  it  was  not  known  in  what  vills.16C 
The  abbot  of  St.  Edmunds  reported  the  number  of  his 
fees  and  the  counties  in  which  they  lay,  but  "in  what 
vills  they  lie  and  how  much  in  each  place,  God  knows."1 
In  1248,  the  jury  was  employed  to  find  out  these  facts 
in  connection  with  this  aid  in  the  county  of  Hereford.182 
The  method  of  this  inquest  was  like  that  of  1166.  Its 
aim  was  purely  financial:  to  furnish  the  government  with 
an  exact  account  of  the  amount  of  land  held  by  military 
tenure  in  order  that  the  payment  of  the  aid  might  be 
enforced. 

3.  A  donum  or  auxilium  of  the  clergy  who  did  not 
hold  by  military  service.163  This  was  not  levied  by  the 
authority  of  the  great  council.  In  July,  August,  and 
September,  the  heads  of  these  religious  houses  were  sum- 
moned to  meet  the  king  or  special  officials  at  convenient 
places  to  discuss  this  aid.164  A  roll  of  the  contributors 
was  drawn  up  and  in  this  roll  the  clergy  who  held  by 

isoFarrer,  p.  144. 

i«o  Bristol  and  Gloucester  Arch.  Soc.,  XIII,  326. 

lei  Testa,  p.  415. 

i«2  Madox,  I,  593,  n.  d. 

163  Testa,  pp.  23b,  38b,  73b;  Madox,  I,  593,  n.  e;  Dunst.,  p.  142; 
Theok.,  p.  97 ;  "de  auxilio  quod  viri  religiosi  nobis  per  regnum  nostrum 
concessemnt"  (Close  Rolls,  III,  223,  211,  212,  221,  228). 

164  Close  Rolls,  III,  187-188.     All  the  houses  did  not  comply  with 
the  summons  and  were  later  called  together  to  meet  officials  of  the 
king   and  make   a  contribution    (Fine   Roll,   19   Henry  III,  part   1, 
m.  1).    The  officials  who  sought  the  aid  from  them  were  the  tallagers. 
The  consent  of  the  religious  houses  was  individual  and  not  corporate. 
The  orders  of  Cistercians,  Premonstratensians,  and  of  Sempringham 
were  exempt. 

212 


UNDER  JOHN  AND  HENRY  III 

military  service  often  appear.16'  The  amounts  raised  by 
the  donum  were  considerable.  In  Gloucestershire,  it 
yielded  £189  2s  3d,  almost  as  much  as  the  scutage  brought 
in  (£210  7s  5d).16e  Property  was  not  assessed;  each 
house  paid  a  lump  sum.167 

4.  The  sheriff  was  to  report  also  the  names  of  those 
tenants  who  held  of  the  king  by  sergeanty  and  socage 
and  in  what  vills  their  holdings  lay  and  what  service  they 
rendered.       Perhaps     such    tenants    were    expected    to 
contribute  also.188 

5.  A  tallage  was  levied.169 

165  Testa,   above;   "in   rotulo   de   auxilio   prelatorum"    (Madox,   I, 
593,  n.  e). 

166  Bristol,  etc.,  XIII,  354,  355. 

167  Sir   Henry  Barkly  thinks   that  this   donum  was   very  strictly 
exacted,  for  he  says  that  the  branches  of  five  foreign  houses  con- 
tributed for  the  first  time. 

lesFarrer,  p.  143;  Bristol,  etc.,  XIII,  355. 

169  Theok.,  p.  97;  "talliari  fecimus  dominica  nostra  per  Angliam" 
(Close  Rolls,  III,  206);  ibid.,  206-316,  passim;  Madox,  I,  735,  notes; 
Pipe  Roll,  19  Henry  III.  The  tallage  was  assessed  by  committees 
of  royal  officials.  The  sheriff  is  mentioned  as  one  of  these  com- 
mittees in  Hereford,  Gloucester,  Cumberland,  Salop,  Stafford,  Norfolk 
and  Suffolk  (Pipe  Roll,  19  Henry  III).  Royal  judges  also  served: 
Thomas  de  Muleton  was  a  tallager  in  Northumberland;  he  was  an 
itinerant  justice  in  1235  (Bracton,  Note  Book,  p.  141);  Eudo  de 
Beauchamp  was  one  of  the  tallage rs  in  Worcester  and  was  a  judge 
of  assize  in  1235  (Cal.  Pat.  Rolls,  I,  108) ;  R.  de  Lexinton  was  a 
justice  in  eyre  in  Somerset  in  November,  1235,  and  he  ("et  socios 
suos")  was  tallaging  the  demesne  in  Gloucester  that  year  (Close 
Rolls,  III,  209,  212).  In  Yorkshire  and  Lincolnshire,  the  tallagers 
were  William  Bretun  and  Roger  de  Essex  (Fine  Roll,  19  Henry  III, 
part  1,  m.  1);  Roger  de  Essex  was  a  king's  escheator  and  a  forest 
justice  in  1236  (Close  Rolls,  III,  269,  344);  William  de  Eboraco  "et 
socii  sui"  tallaged  Hants  and  Surrey  (Fine  Roll,  above,  m.  1) ; 
William  was  an  itinerant  justice  in  1235  (Close  Rolls,  III,  111). 
The  towns  compounded  in  lump  sums  for  their  tallages.  The  amount 
charged  in  30  counties  was  3,400  marks.  London  paid  1,000  marks 
(Pipe  Roll,  21  Henry  III,  m.  7). 

213 


STUDIES  IN  TAXATION 

The  amount  of  the  dowry  was  raised  in  some  way.  The 
last  payment  of  10,000  marks  was  made  in  June,  1237.17C 

THE  THIRTIETH,  1237 

On  January  13,  1237,  the  great  council  met  at  Lon- 
don171 in  response  to  a  special  summons.  There  was  a 
large  attendance;  those  present  were  the  prelates,  the 
earls,  and  the  barons.  If  the  lesser  tenants  in  chief 
attended,  they  did  not  receive  special  mention  as  a  sepa- 
rate class.172  The  distinction  made  in  the  writ  of  collec- 
tion between  knights  and  barons  may  imply  that  the  latter 
term  when  used  alone  included  only  the  greater  lay 
tenants.173 

ITO  Cat.  Pat.  Rolls,  I,  188;  Rymer,  I,  232. 

i™  Matthew  Paris  says  that  the  council  met  January  13  (III,  380); 
the  Close  Roll  gives  January  20,  octave  of  St.  Hilary's  day  (III,  543). 
The  council  lasted  several  days  (Matthew  Paris  says  four)  and  the 
decision  to  make  the  grant  may  have  been  taken  on  the  octave. 

172  Those  summoned  were:  "archiepiscopis,  episcopis,  abbatibus,  et 
prioribus  installatis,  comitibus,  et  baronibus"  (Matthew  Paris,  III, 
380);  these  met:  "infinita  nobilium  multitudo,  scilicet,  regni  totalis 
universitas"  (ibid.) ;  "convocato  magno  colloquio  archiepiscoporum, 
episcoporum,  abbatum  et  priorum,  comitum  et  baronum,  civium  et 
burgensium  et  aliorum  multorum"  (Theok.,  p.  102);  "tarn  a  clero 
qua: 1 1  a  populo"  (Wykes,  p.  83) ;  Osney,  p.  84. 

ITS  Three  descriptions  of  the  tenants  are  given:  the  king  states  that 
those  who  assembled  were:  "archiepiscopi,  episcopi,  abbates,  priores, 
comites  et  barones  totius  regni  nostri  et  tractatum  haberent  nobis- 
cum";  and  then  that  "iidem  archiepiscopi,  episcopi,  abbates,  priores 
et  clerici  terras  habentes  que  ad  ecclesias  suas  non  pertinent,  comites, 
barones,  milites  et  liberi  homines  pro  se  et  suis  villanis  nobis  con- 
cesserunt  in  auxilium  tricesimam  partem  etc.";  and  finally  he  con- 
firms the  charters  to  "archiepiscopis,  episcopis,  abbatibus,  prioribus, 
comitibus,  baronibus  et  vobis  omnibus  aliis  de  regno  nostro"  (Close 
Rolls,  III,  543-545;  Select  Charters,  pp.  366-368).  The  last  phrase 
is  also  given,  "et  aliis  magnatibus  regni  nostri"  (Close  Rolls,  III, 
546).  The  second  description  is  that  of  the  taxpayers;  the  other  of 
the  members  of  the  council.  The  concluding  phrases  "vobis  omnibus 
aliis  de  regno  nostro,"  etc.,  do  not  seem  to  refer  to  a  definite  class 
at  the  council,  but  seem  to  be  used  vaguely  to  include  all  to  whom 

214 


UNDER  JOHN  AND  HENRY  III 

The  king  asked  for  an  aid  of  a  thirtieth  of  moveables. 
His  reasons  for  the  request  were  that  his  officials  had 
been  dishonest  in  the  management  of  his  income  and  that 
the  heavy  expenses  of  his  own  marriage  and  that  of  his 
sister  had  depleted  the  treasury.174  All  this  was  probably 
true.  The  dower  of  the  empress  was  still  in  arrears. 

The  demand  met  with  opposition  at  once.  Consider- 
able discussion  ensued,  but  finally  it  was  agreed  to  make 
the  grant.  The  king  was  to  admit  three  barons  to  his 
council  and  reconfirm  the  charters;  a  new  sentence  of 
excommunication  was  proclaimed  against  violators.  No 
one  was  to  pay  unless  he  had  more  than  forty  pence 
worth  of  goods.  That  property  was  to  be  taxed  which 
would  be  held  on  September  14,  1237,  when  the  assess- 
ment was  to  begin.  The  dates  of  payment  were  half  on 
December  1,  1237,  and  half  on  May  31,  1238.175  The 
clerical  tenants  in  chief  made  a  separate  arrangement 
with  the  king,  though  they  paid  the  same  tax.  The 
words  of  Matthew  Paris  in  describing  the  grant  suggest 
this,  when  he  says  that  the  archbishop  of  Canterbury 
with  his  bishops  and  clergy  first  agreed  to  a  thirtieth.176 
The  clergy  furthermore  assessed  and  collected  the  tax 
on  their  own  lands.177 

the  grant  of  the  charters  might  apply.  The  reference  to  citizens  and 
burgesses  in  the  Tewkesbury  chronicle  probably  refers  merely  to  the 
presence  of  some  Londoners.  At  any  rate,  it  was  of  no  importance 
as  a  precedent. 

"4  Matthew  Paris,  III,  380-383. 

i75  Select  Charters,  above;  Close  Rolls,  above.  The  original  dates 
of  a  payment  were  not  always  enforced  (Close  Rolls,  IV,  116,  117,  119, 
130,  263).  Sometimes  a  taxpayer  obtained  a  postponement  of  the 
date  of  payment  (ibid.,  pp.  115,  130).  Besides  the  chroniclers  cited 
above,  the  tax  is  noted  by  Dunst.,  p.  147;  Wav.,  p.  317;  Wint.,  p.  87; 
"vicesima,"  Wig.,  p.  428;  Gerv.  Cant.,  II,  130;  Ann.  Camb.,  p.  82. 

iT6  "consientibus  igitur  primum  archiepiscopo  Cantuariensi  cum 
suis  episcopis  et  clero"  (Matthew  Paris,  above). 

i"  See  below,  p.  217. 

215 


STUDIES  IN  TAXATION 

The  persons  who  paid  the  thirtieth  seem  to  have  been 
the  same  as  in  the  previous  cases  of  taxes  on  personal 
property.178  The  beneficed  clergy  were  again  exempt.178 
Great  foreign  orders  did  not  pay  the  tax  as  granted  by 
the  council.  The  abbot  of  Cluny  made  a  separate  grant 
of  a  thirtieth  and  received  letters  patent  stating  that  it 
was  a  free  gift  and  not  owed  and  that  it  was  not  to  form 
a  precedent.180  The  Cistercians,  the  Premonstratensians, 
the  Templars,  and  the  Hospitallers  did  not  pay  the  thir- 
tieth and  may  have  paid  nothing  at  all.181  Some  religious 
houses  had  their  property  assessed,  but  were  finally 
exempted.182  Th»  royal  demesne  probably  did  not  pay 
the  thirtieth.183 

The  method  of  assessment  did  not  vary  materially  from 
that  employed  in  1232.  The  king  sent  commissioners, 
four  knights  and  a  clerk,  called  assessors  and  collectors, 
to  each  county.184  The  sheriff  summoned  the  men  of  the 
vills  to  meet  them  and  four  men  were  chosen  from  each 

ITS  See  note  175.  The  writ  enumerates  the  same  persons  as  in  1232. 
The  wording  is  exactly  the  same  except  for  the  last  phrase:  in  1232, 
"liberi  homines  et  villani";  in  1237,  "liberi  homines,  pro  se  et  suis 
villanis."  The  change  is  due  to  the  desire  to  make  a  more  careful 
statement.  The  same  desire  is  shown  by  the  fact  that  for  the  first 
time  both  the  taxable  and  the  exempt  property  is  enumerated.  The 
list  of  taxable  goods  is  practically  the  same  as  in  1232  except  that 
more  discretion  is  given  the  assessors  by  the  addition  of  the  phrase, 
"et  aliis  pecoribus  et  bonis." 

i™  Select  Charters,  above. 

iso  Gal.  Pat.  Rolls,  I,  205;  Close  Rolls,  IV,  9. 

M  Close  Rolls,  III,  567,  569;  IV,  45,  67,  114,  119. 

182/6,'d.,  Ill,  569,  570,  575;  IV,  2,  8,  20,  29. 

iss  The  reference  to  citizens  and  burgesses  in  the  great  council 
suggests  that  the  demesne  paid  the  thirtieth  (Theok.,  p.  102),  but 
in  18  counties,  the  assessors  were  directed  not  to  assess  the  tax  on 
the  royal  demesne  (Close  Rolls,  III,  575;  IV,  37,  115);  in  the  follow- 
ing year  the  king  levied  a  tallage,  which  he  would  hardly  have  done 
had  the  demesne  just  paid  the  thirtieth. 

is*  Except  in  Yorkshire  and  Lincolnshire.  In  the  East  and  North 
Ridings  of  Yorkshire  there  were  two  knights  and  a  clerk;  in  the 

216 


UNDER  JOHN  AND  HENRY  III 

vill  to  assess  the  tax.  There  does  not  seem  to  be  any 
difference  between  this  method  of  choosing  the  local 
assessors  and  that  of  1232. 18J  These  four  men,  in  the 
presence  of  the  county  commissioners  and  of  the  bailiffs 
of  the  lords  of  the  vill,  if  they  wished  to  be  present,  were 
to  swear  to  the  number  and  value  of  the  chattels  of  each 
man  in  the  vill,  except  their  own,  which  were  to  be  assessed 
by  four  other  men  chosen  in  the  same  way.  The  valuation 
was  to  be  reasonable.  A  roll  of  the  vill  was  to  be  drawn 
up  and  after  it  had  been  approved  by  the  commissioners, 
the  four  men  of  the  vill  were  to  collect  the  tax  and  pay 
it  to  the  commissioners  for  deposit  in  a  safe  place  (a 
castle,  an  abbey)  till  it  was  brought  to  London.186  The 
method  of  collection  therefore  differed  from  that  of  1232. 
The  barons  were  not  to  collect.  Their  interests  were  safe- 
guarded in  another  way,  viz.,  by  the  presence  of  their 
bailiffs  when  the  assessment  was  made.187  The  county 
officials  did  not  assess  the  property  of  the  clergy.  The 
same  method  was  employed,  but  each  prelate  had  charge 
of  the  assessment  and  made  use  of  his  own  knights  or 
freemen,  who  however  needed  a  royal  writ  to  undertake 
this  work.185  After  the  money  had  been  collected,  it  was 
delivered  to  the  royal  commissioners.  Efforts  were  made 
to  escape  assessment.  Tenants  concealed  their  goods. 

West  Riding,  four  knights  and  a  clerk.    In  each  of  the  three  parts  of 
Lincolnshire,    Lindes',    Ketsteven,    and    Holland,    there    were    four 
knights  and  a  clerk  (ibid.,  Ill,  546-554). 
iss  See  above,  p.  203. 

186  Close  Rolls,  III,  546-554;  IV,  12,  111,  116,  118,  119,  388,  389; 
Cal.  Pat.  Rolls,  I,  225.    The  sheriff  was  to  provide  transportation  for 
the  money.     He  was  to  distrain  men  to  pay  the  tax  to  the  county 
assessors:  "et  si  indigeant  auxilio  tuo  circa  districtionem  faciendam 
in  collectione  dicte  pecunie,  tu  eis  auxilium  parabis"   (Close  Rolls, 
III,  545;  IV,  116;  Cal.  Pat.  Rolls,  I,  231). 

187  A  lay  baron  however  might  be  allowed  to  collect  from  his  men; 
e.g.  Gilbert  de  Umfravill  (Close  Rolls,  IV,  45). 

iss  Select  Charters,  p.  367;  Close  Rolk,  III,  555,  557,  559;  IV,  4, 
15,  18. 

217 


STUDIES  IN  TAXATION 

Some  juries  of  the  vills  were  corrupted,  assessing  property 
at  less  than  its  real  value.  Whenever  this  fraud  was 
discovered,  the  property  was  re-assessed  by  a  new  jury 
and  the  former  jurors  were  punished  for  perjury.188 

The  amount  received  was  33,811m  2s  Id.190  The 
greater  part  of  the  tax  was  probably  paid  in  1238 ;  most 
of  the  notices  of  payment  are  of  that  year,191  though  there 
are  references  to  payment  years  afterward.192  As  in 
1225,  the  receipts  were  regarded  as  a  special  fund  for 
use  on  extraordinary  occasions.  The  king  borrowed  from 
this  fund  and  promised  to  repay  the  loan  from  the  ordi- 
nary income  of  the  exchequer.193  Mention  has  been  made 
of  the  three  magnates  who  were  to  have  been  added  to 
the  king's  council.  According  to  Matthew  Paris,  the 
magnates  in  1242  claimed  that  the  king  had  promised 
to  store  the  money  in  castles  under  the  care  of  four  mag- 
nates and  to  spend  it  only  by  the  advice  of  the  latter, 
but  that  none  had  been  thus  spent  so  far  as  they  had 
heard.194  This  was  not  the  regulation  which  the  same 
chronicler  describes  in  1237.  Yet  Henry  III  had  taken 
some  measures  to  restrict  his  expenditure.  On  November 
28,  1237,  he  declared  that  he  would  store  the  thirtieth 
in  some  safe  place  and  spend  none  of  it  except  by  the 
advice  of  the  legate,  Otho.195  A  part  of  the  tax  of 
Lincolnshire  was  left  in  1242  and  was  still  in  the  custody 

189  Close  Rolls,  III,  569.     An  interesting  entry  is  one  concerning 
a  man  whose  grain  was  destroyed  after  the  assessment  was  made 
and  his  thirtieth  was  pardoned  (ibid.,  IV,  15). 

190  Red  Book,  III,  1064. 

i»i  Cal  Pat.  Rolls,  I,  passim. 

MExcerpta,  I,  449,  anno  1246;  II,  279,  anno  1258.  Both  of  these 
cases  refer  to  collectors  who  apparently  had  levied  the  tax  but  had 
not  closed  their  accounts  with  the  exchequer. 

193  Cal.  Pat.  Rolls,  I,  212. 

19*  Matthew  Paris,  IV,  186. 

195  Cal.  Pat.  Rolls,  I,  205. 

218 


UNDER  JOHN  AND  HENRY  III 

of  the  collectors,198  and  a  part  was  still  at  the  Temple.197 
Yet  early  in  1238,  the  king  had  succeeded  in  getting  rid 
of  12,480  marks  of  this  tax.  A  thousand  pounds  were 
lent  to  the  prior  of  the  Hospitallers  to  spend  in  the  Holy 
Land.  Five  hundred  pounds  were  sent  as  a  gift  to  the 
Greek  emperor.  Six  thousand  marks  were  paid  to 
Richard,  earl  of  Cornwall,  to  advance  his  interests  at 
Paris.19*  Three  thousand  marks  which  Henry  III  prom- 
ised to  repay  went  to  pay  knights  in  Gascony.199  The 
rest  went  in  gifts,  loans,  and  expenses.  An  interesting 
feature  of  this  levy  is  the  king's  promise  that  the  aid 
should  not  form  a  precedent  for  future  taxation.  He  had 
made  such  promises  before,  but  only  to  the  clergy;  now 
the  promise  was  made  to  the  laity  as  well. 

Another  tax  of  1237  was  a  tallage  of  6,000  marks 
levied  on  the  Jews ;  half  was  to  be  paid  to  the  earl  of 
Cornwall  to  supply  him  with  money  for  a  pilgrimage 
and  half  to  the  king.200  The  magnates  in  Ireland  had 
been  asked  in  1235  to  grant  an  aid  to  the  king  similar 
to  that  paid  in  England  that  year.  Up  to  the  close  of 
1237,  they  had  not  complied  with  the  request.  They 
were  now  asked  to  make  a  further  grant  of  a  thirtieth, 
and  some  contributed.201 

As  has  been  said,  the  royal  demesne  does  not  seem  to 
have  paid  the  thirtieth,202  but  in  1238  it  paid  the  king  a 

i9a  The  collectors  of  the  thirtieth  in  that  county  were  to  deliver 
£453  10s  of  the  thirtieth  in  their  custody  to  the  sheriff  to  bring  to 
London  (Ca.1.  Pat.  Rolls,  I,  275,  277). 

197  l,247m  2s  lO^d  (ibid.,  281). 

198  ibid.,  209,  217,  222. 

199  Ibid.,  212. 

200  ibid.,  173,  178. 

201  Ibid.,  215;  Close  Rolls,  III,  571-575. 

202  There  are   orders  not  to  assess  or  collect  without   the  special 
order  of  the  king  the  thirtieth  on  the  demesne  in  eighteen  counties 
(Close  Rolls,  III,  575;  IV,  115):  "Quia  rex  wult  quod  manerium  de 
Bruges  Walteri   tallientur  inter  dominica  regis,  cum  rex   fecerit  ea 
talliari,    mandatum    est    assessoribus    et    collectoribus    tricesime    in 

219 


STUDIES  IN  TAXATION 

tallage,  a  levy  which  apparently  took  the  place  of  the 
aid  of  the  previous  year.202  The  demesne  thus  paid  a  tax 
to  which  the  king  was  entitled  by  customary  law,  not  one 
which  he  levied  by  virtue  of  a  grant  by  the  great  council. 
Three  years  later,  in  1241,  another  tallage  was  levied  on 
the  demesne.  In  twenty  counties,  the  sum  charged 
amounted  to  4,240  marks.204  As  usual  towns  fined  for 
the  levy.  Sometimes  the  tax  was  assessed  by  the  sheriff 
alone;  sometimes  special  officials  assessed  it  either  alone 
or  in  conjunction  with  the  sheriff.  These  officials  were 
usually,  perhaps  always,  royal  judges.205  In  the  same 
year,  a  tallage  of  20,000  marks  was  levied  on  the  Jews.206 
There  was  also  an  expedition  against  the  Welsh,  who  how- 

comitatu  Sumers'  quod  nullam  tricesimam  in  eodem  manerio  assideri 
vel  colligi  faciant"  (ibid.,  IV,  16). 

203  On  October  18,  1238,  the  king  granted  the  earl  of  Cornwall  the 
right  to  tallage  his  demesnes  "quia  rex  talliari  facit  civitates,  burgos 
et  alia  dominica  sua"  (ibid.,  IV,  109).    In  1236  and  1237,  the  bishop- 
rics of  Durham  and  of  Norwich  were  void  and  were  tallaged  (Cal. 
Pat.  Rolls,  I,  158,  169,  173,  185,  190),  but  this  was  done  before  the 
thirtieth  was  collected  and  had  nothing  to  do  with  the  tallage  on  the 
demesne. 

204  The  accounts  appear  in  the  Pipe  Rolls  of  1241,  1242,  and  1243. 
London  is  included;  it  fined  in  £1,000.     For  other  references  to  this 
tallage,  see  Cal.  Pat.  Rolls,  I,  275;  Vincent,  p.  61;  Madox,  I,  723, 
n.  c;  Liber  Mem.  de  Bernewelle,  p.  78;  Matthew  Paris,  IV,  95;  Close 
Rolls,  IV,  281-339. 

205  in   Salop   and   Stafford,  John   Lestrange,   the   sheriff,   was   ap- 
pointed to  assess  it  (Cal.  Pat.  Rolls,  I,  273;  Pipe  Roll,  26  Henry  III, 
Salop).      Henry   de    Bathonia   and    William    de    S.    Edmundo    were 
appointed  to  assess  it  in  four  counties  (Cal.  Pat.  Rolls,  I,  293) ;  the 
first  was  a  justice  in  eyre  in  Hants  in  January,  1241;  the  second  was 
a  justice  in  eyre  in  1238  and  was  acting  as  a  judge  in  December, 
1240  (Close  Rolls,  IV,  58,  345;  Cal.  Pat.  Rolls,  I,  262).    John  Gum- 
baud  and  Richard  Duket,  justices  in  eyre  in  January,  1241,  assessed 
the  tallage  in  seven  bailiwicks,  probably  always  in  conjunction  with 
the  sheriff  (Cal.  Pat.  Rolls,  I,  263;  Pipe  Roll,  26  Henry  III,  Cant, 
and    Hunt.,    Bucks    and    Bedf.,    Norf.    and    Suff.,    York,    Cumb., 
Northamp.,  and  Northumb.). 

206  Close  Rolls,  IV,  281,  312;  Cal.  Pat.  Rolls,  I,  247,  249;  Madox,  I, 
224,  notes. 

220 


UNDER  JOHN  AND  HENRY  III 

ever  submitted  without  any  fighting.207  Accordingly  a 
scutage  was  not  levied.  We  have  already  noted  that  many 
tenants  no  longer  served  with  their  full  contingents  and 
that  the  reduced  service  was  considered  to  be  the  total 
service  owed  by  the  holding.  An  entry  on  the  Close  Roll 
of  1241  suggests  that  the  practice  had  become  so  common 
that  a  roll  had  been  drawn  up  stating  the  amount  of  the 
new  servitium  debitum,  as  it  may  properly  be  called.  On 
July  25,  Henry  III  wrote  from  Gloucester  to  his  treasurer 
ordering  him  to  examine  the  exchequer  rolls  and  report  to 
the  king  the  amount  of  service  owed  by  the  tenants  in  chief 
as  contained  in  a  certain  roll  of  that  service.208 

20T  Matthew  Paris,  IV,  149-151;  Theok.,  p.  120;  Wint.,  p.  89; 
Wav.,  p.  328;  Ann.  Camb.,  p.  83;  Brut.,  p.  329;  Gal.  Pat.  Rolls,  I,  254, 
256,  257,  264;  Close  Rolls,  IV,  326. 

208  "Mandatum  est  W.  de  Haverhull',  thesaurario  regis,  quod  dili- 
genter  scrutatis  rotulis  de  scaccario,  significet  regi  quod  et  quantum 
servicium  regi  debetur  ab  archiepiscopis,  episcopis,  abbatibus,  priori- 
bus,  comitibus,  baronibus,  militibus  et  servientibus,  in  quodam  rotulo 
servicium  illud  continente.  Hoc  cum  summa  festinatione  faciat  et 
regi  transmittat"  (Close  Rolls,  IV,  360).  The  probability  that  the 
text  gives  the  correct  interpretation  of  this  extract  from  the  Close 
Roll  is  strengthened  by  the  fact  that  we  have  such  a  roll  of  the  new 
servitium  debitum  from  the  expedition  to  Wales  of  1245  (see  below, 
pp.  246,  247). 


221 


CHAPTER  VII 

THE  TAXES  IN  DETAIL  FROM  1242  TO  1253 

T  P  to  this  time,  there  had  been  evident  a  disposition 
^-^  on  the  part  of  the  barons  to  criticise  the  financial 
demands  of  the  government  and  to  make  some  efforts  to 
unite  in  opposition  to  the  king.  These  efforts  had  culmi- 
nated in  1237  in  the  suggestion  that  there  should  be  some 
baronial  supervision  of  royal  expenditure  and  in  the 
king's  promise  that  the  thirtieth  of  that  year  should 
not  form  a  precedent  for  future  demands.  But  the  oppo- 
sition of  the  tenants  in  chief  never  reached  the  point 
where  the  king  failed  to  have  the  tax  granted. 

Beginning  in  1242,  a  further  step  was  taken  by  the 
barons.  They  refused  to  grant  aids  to  the  king.  The 
reasons  which  Henry  III  gave  at  that  time  and  afterward 
to  explain  why  taxes  were  necessary  were  the  same  that 
he  had  given  before.  In  1242,  he  wanted  to  raise  money 
for  the  expedition  to  Gascony;  later,  he  needed  it  to  pay 
his  debts.  But  to  these  demands  the  barons  turned  a 
deaf  ear.  The  cause  for  their  refusal  was  twofold.  They 
did  not  deny  that  the  king  was  in  want  of  money,  but 
they  felt  that  this  want  was  due  to  his  own  mismanage- 
ment of  his  income  and  that  therefore  such  frequent  taxes 
were  unnecessary.  At  the  same  time,  they  feared  that 
the  king  was  establishing  a  right  of  arbitrary  taxation, 
and  on  this  account  they  demanded  that  the  king  allow 
them  to  supervise  his  expenditure  and  thus  enable  them 
to  decide  when  taxes  were  necessary.  The  claim  that 
Henry  III  should  live  of  his  own  probably  states  in  exag- 
gerated form  the  belief  of  the  barons  that  extraordinary 

222 


UNDER  JOHN  AND  HENRY  III 

levies  should  be  demanded  less  frequently.  The  king's 
refusal  to  admit  any  control  of  his  expenses  was  met  by 
the  barons'  refusal  to  grant  aids.  That  this  refusal  was 
effective  is  shown  by  the  king's  fruitless  appeals  to  indi- 
viduals, which  now  appear  for  the  first  time,  and  by  his 
frequent  summoning  of  the  great  council  to  persuade  its 
members  to  make  him  a  grant.  Baronial  control  is  illus- 
trated in  1245  when  the  tenants  refused  to  grant  any  aid 
other  than  the  one  which  the  feudal  law  gave  the  king, 
the  aid  to  marry  his  daughter,  and  in  the  low  rate  which 
was  fixed,  twenty  shillings  per  fee. 

The  taxes  of  the  period  therefore  comprise  only  those 
levies  to  which  Henry  III  was  entitled  by  feudal  law, 
with  one  possible  exception,  the  donum  from  religious 
houses  in  1248.  There  were  two  scutages,  an  aid  to 
marry  the  king's  daughter,  three  tallages,  and  three  dona 
from  religious  bodies.  Both  the  scutages  were  legal  (in 
1242  for  Gascony  and  in  1246  for  Wales).  They  were 
both  accompanied  by  fines,  but  were  not  aids,  that  is, 
they  were  paid  only  by  the  tenants  who  had  failed  to 
perform  their  service.  In  the  case  of  the  levy  of  1242, 
it  will  be  noticed  that  the  king  tried  to  enlarge  the  number 
of  fees  which  paid  scutage.  As  far  as  the  scutage  of 
Gascony  was  concerned,  the  effort  was  in  part  at  least 
unsuccessful  and  it  certainly  did  not  result  in  a  permanent 
increase  in  the  number  of  fees  from  which  the  king  could 
collect  scutage.1  The  bishops  in  1242  again  renewed  the 
claim  successfully  that  they  did  not  owe  scutage  for  a 
campaign  in  Gascony;  they  made  instead  an  aid  at  the 
same  rate  as  the  scutage.  This  seems  to  be  a  denial  of 
military  service  overseas.  There  was  an  expedition  to 
Scotland  in  1244,  but  no  scutage  was  taken,  clearly 
because  there  was  no  fighting.  Thus  scutage  could  not 

i  There  is  no  change  in  the  number  of  fees  for  which  individual 
tenants  account  at  the  exchequer  after  1242. 

223 


STUDIES  IN  TAXATION 

be  levied  at  the  will  of  the  king.  For  the  first  time,  the 
rate  of  scutage  for  a  campaign  in  Wales  was  three  marks, 
an  increase  which  shows  the  king's  lack  of  money.  In 
this  campaign,  too,  we  see  that  the  incomplete  quotas 
with  which  tenants  had  long  been  serving  were  coming 
to  be  regarded  as  the  servitium  debitum  of  their  holdings. 
It  will  be  noticed  that  in  1245  the  barons  put  a  check 
on  the  efforts  which  the  king  had  been  making  to  increase 
the  number  of  fees  which  should  pay  scutage.  The  writs 
of  collection  state  that  the  aid  was  to  be  paid  on  the 
number  of  fees  which  paid  customarily.  With  1246,  there 
began  a  barren  period  for  the  exchequer.  The  only  levies 
till  1253  were  two  tallages  on  the  demesne  and  one  donum 
on  religious  bodies.  It  is  noteworthy  that  the  latter  were 
now  taxed  for  the  first  time  when  no  aid  or  scutage  was 
levied  on  other  classes  of  the  community. 

THE  TAXATION  or  1242 

On  December  14,  1241,  Henry  III  issued  writs  sum- 
moning the  tenants  in  chief  to  meet  at  London  on  the 
January  27  following.2  January  8,  1242,  he  ordered 
the  sheriffs  of  the  maritime  counties  to  provide  ships  at 
Portsmouth  before  April  13,  ready  to  cross  the  seas  with 
him.3  January  28,  the  great  council  met  and  was  asked 
to  grant  the  king  an  aid  for  the  campaign  in  France,  a 
demand  which,  in  accordance  with  a  previous  agreement 
among  themselves,  the  magnates  refused.  After  some 
attempts,  partly  successful,  to  persuade  the  tenants  singly 

2  Close  Rolls,  IV,  428.  The  writ  given  is  addressed  to  the  arch- 
bishop of  York;  "eodem  modo  scribitur  omnibus  episcopis,  abbatibus, 
comitibus  et  baronibus."  The  business  is  described  as  follows:  "ad 
tractandum  nobiscum  una  cum  ceteris  magnatibus  nostris  quos  simili- 
ter  fecimus  convocari  de  arduis  negociis  nostris  statum  nostrum  et 
tocius  regni  nostri  specialiter  tangentibus."  See  also  Matthew  Paris, 
IV,  180. 

s  Close  Rolls,  IV,  429. 

224 


UNDER  JOHN  AND  HENRY  III 

to  grant  him  money,  the  king  dissolved  the  council.4  He 
did  not  however  give  up  his  proposed  expedition.  Orders 
were  immediately  issued  to  collect  money  from  religious 
bodies,5  and  on  February  8,  the  military  tenants  were 
summoned  to  meet  at  Winchester  on  April  27.6  They 
were  reluctant  to  serve,  but  some  met  and  on  May  9,  the 
king  sailed  for  France  with  eight  earls  and  300  knights.7 
He  had  no  intention  of  carrying  on  the  campaign  with 
this  force  alone.  Those  tenants  who  had  failed  to  answer 
the  summons  were  distrained  to  appear  at  London  on  July 
15  and  cross  to  Gascony.8  As  soon  as  the  king  arrived 
in  France,  he  wrote  urgently  for  200  knights,  100  ser- 
geants, 500  good  Welshmen,  and  money.  Fines  were  to 
be  remitted  and  money  paid  to  knights  if  they  would  come 
to  his  aid.9  On  the  same  date,  he  wrote  to  fifty  tenants, 

<  Matthew  Paris,  IV,  181-188.  Those  summoned  were  "archi- 
episcopis,  episcopis,  abbatibus,  prioribus,  comitibus,  et  baronibus"; 
those  present  were  "totius  Angliae  nobilitas,  tarn  praelatorum  quam 
comitum  et  baronum";  "dominus  Eboracensis  archiepiscopus  et  omnes 
episcopi  Angliae,  abbates  et  priores,  per  se,  vel  per  procurators  suos, 
necnon  et  omnes  comites  et  fere  omnes  barones  Angliae  ad  mandatum 
domini  regis  convenissent." 

5  Close  Rolls,  IV,  430,  431.  This  probably  began  during  the  coun- 
cil: "protendens  rotulum,  in  quo  scriptum  monstravit,  quid  ille  vel 
ille  abbas  vel  prior  tantum  vel  tantum  promisit  se  daturum" 
(Matthew  Paris,  IV,  182,  189). 

s  Close  Rolls,  IV,  431.  Another  summons  was  issued  to  this  effect 
to  all  sheriffs  on  March  24  (ibid.,  p.  435;  Vincent,  p.  64). 

^  Rymer,  I,  246;  Matthew  Paris,  IV,  192;  Theok.,  p.  122.  May  5, 
Dunst.,  p.  158;  May  9,  Wav.,  p.  329,  and  Wint.,  p.  89. 

s  "et  quia  plures  .  .  .  non  venerunt  ad  trans fretandum  nobiscum 
sicut  summoniti  fuerunt,  tibi  (vicecomiti)  praecipimus  quod  omnes 
tales  distringas  per  terras  et  catalla  quod  sint  apud  Lond'  .  .  .  parati 
ad  transfretandum  post  corpus  nostrum"  (Close  Rolls,  IV,  486). 
This  order  was  enrolled  May  19.  The  order  to  distrain  was  not  a 
mere  threat,  but  was  carried  out;  see  the  cases  of  Isabella  de  Morti- 
mer, William  de  Ros,  and  Robert  de  Hayford  (ibid.,  pp.  427,  453, 
465,  472). 

9  Rymer,  I,  246 ;  Close  Rolls,  IV,  496-499.  William  de  Cantilupe, 
who  was  a  leader  of  the  reinforcements  which  later  crossed,  received 
a  loan  of  100m  that  was  afterward  pardoned  (Pipe  Roll,  26  Henry 

225 


STUDIES  IN  TAXATION 

summoning  them  to  come  at  once.10  Nor  was  this  order 
disregarded.  Tenants  were  going  over  to  Gascony 
throughout  the  summer.11  Some  tenants  who  served  this 
year  came  with  only  part  of  their  contingents.12  Mer- 

III,  Dors,  and  Somers.).  Matthew  Paris  says  that  the  count  of  la 
Marche  had  advised  the  king  to  bring  money,  not  men,  as  he  would 
provide  a  sufficient  military  force  (IV,  189);  the  king  therefore  may 
have  been  unusually  lenient  in  allowing  men  to  fine  for  their  service. 

10  Rymer,  above;  Close  Rolls,  IV,  498,  527. 

n  August  28,  men  were  being  sent  over  (Rymer,  I,  248);  see  also 
Cal.  Pat.  Rolls,  I,  302;  Close  Rolls,  IV,  460;  Matthew  Paris,  IV,  198. 
William  de  Albiniaco,  Andrew  Lutrel,  and  Thomas  Gresley  fined 
(Rymer,  I,  246;  Pipe  Roll,  26  Henry  III,  Line.,  War.  and  Leic.), 
but  later  crossed  to  the  king  (letters  of  protection  for  them,  Cal. 
Pat.  Rolls,  I,  294-297).  Vital  Engayne  fined  in  40m  and  later  sent 
his  son  and  part  of  his  fine  was  pardoned  (Close  Rolls,  IV,  473) ; 
William  de  Siffrewast  (ibid.,  no.  58,  m.  15).  Thomas  de  Berkeley 
fined  in  60m,  then  sent  his  son  with  two  knights  and  his  fine  was 
pardoned  (ibid.,  m.  14)  ;  Robert  de  Hayford  was  to  be  distrained  to 
cross  on  October  6  "cum  aliis  militibus  qui  ad  mandatum  nostrum 
tune  ad  regem  similiter  trans fretabunt"  (ibid.,  IV,  465).  For  the 
persistent  opposition  of  the  barons  to  this  expedition,  in  spite  of 
which  they  were  still  obliged  to  serve,  see  Dunst.,  pp.  158-159: 
"rex  ...  a  magnatibus  suis  Angliae  fere  omnibus  ibi  (at  Bordeaux, 
after  the  campaign)  dimittitur,  sine  quorum  consilio  ab  Anglia 
fuerat  profectus."  Matthew  Paris  rather  exaggerates  this  feeling 
when  he  says  that  the  king  had  to  persuade  rather  than  to  com- 
mand the  magnates  to  accompany  him,  "datis  muneribus  preciosis" 
(Matthew  Paris,  IV,  189).  By  these  gifts  are  meant  probably  loans 
(see  above,  note  9) ;  they  were  not  uncommon  under  John  (see 
above,  pp.  37,  97,  111). 

12  Richard  de  Munfichet,  47%  fees,  had  two  knights  with  the  king 
and  received  all  his  scutage  (Michel,  Roles  gascons,  no.  145;  Close 
Rolls,  IV,  493)  ;  the  earl  of  Arundel,  84^  fees,  had  five  knights  in 
the  host  and  was  granted  all  his  scutage  (Michel,  no.  138;  Close 
Rolls,  above)  ;  Thomas  de  Berkeley,  five  fees,  first  fined  in  60m,  then 
sent  his  son  "se  tertio"  and  his  fine  was  pardoned  (Rymer,  I,  246; 
Close  Rolls,  no.  58,  m.  14)  ;  "Rex  dedit  respectum  Johanni  de  Stute- 
vill'  de  servicio  trium  militum  quod  regi  debet  donee  rex  venerit  in 
Wasconiam"  (Close  Rolls,  IV,  413);  he  held  fifteen  fees.  Notice 
however  that  Andreas  Peverel  and  Richard  de  Harecurt  each  sent 
one  knight  to  Gascony  (ibid.,  493)  ;  they  held  respectively  one  fee, 
and  a  third  of  a  fee  (Pipe  Roll,  29  Henry  III,  Sussex,  Oxon.,  m. 
9,  7  d)  ;  in  War.  and  Leic.  a  Richard  Fitz  William  de  Harecurt  held 

226 


UNDER  JOHN  AND  HENRY  III 

cenaries  were  employed.13  Thus  the  king  was  able  but 
with  difficulty  to  compel  tenants  to  perform  their  service. 

In  connection  with  this  expedition,  there  were  levied  a 
scutage  at  three  marks  on  the  fees  of  religious  houses  and 
of  lay  tenants  together  with  fines,  an  aid  at  the  same  rate 
on  the  bishops,  and  dona  (contributions  in  lump  sums) 
on  religious  houses.14 

The  scutage  on  religious  houses  and  the  laity  was  put 
in  charge  before  the  king's  departure.  On  May  19,  a 
writ  was  issued  to  the  sheriff  of  Yorkshire  ordering  him 
to  collect  scutage  at  three  marks  from  all  fees  in  hand  and 
from  rear-vassals  of  all  tenants  who  had  no  writs  of 
scutage,  and  to  have  the  money  at  the  exchequer  on 
October  13. 15  Before  the  date  of  sailing,  grants  were 
made  to  tenants  in  chief  of  the  scutage  of  their  vassals. 
On  May  1,  the  sheriffs  in  whose  bailiwicks  Richard,  earl 
of  Cornwall,  had  fees  were  to  cause  him  to  have  his  scutage 
at  three  marks  per  fee  at  the  coming  October  13,  1242, 

two  fees  (ibid.,  m.  10)  and  he  may  be  the  Richard  de  Harecurt 
mentioned  above;  in  any  case,  the  entries  illustrate  the  fact  that  a 
small  tenant  might  furnish  all  or  nearly  all  his  service. 

13  Rymer,  I,  247,  249;  Cal.  Pat.  Rolls,  I,  308,  316;  Michel,  no.  248; 
Close  Rolls,  IV,  406;  in  August,  efforts  were  being  made  to  provide 
500   Welshmen,  probably  the   force  concerning  which   the  king  had 
written  in  June  (ibid.,  458) ;  in  September,  100  knights,  100  sergeants, 
and  4,000  Welsh  (ibid.,  514). 

14  No  tallage  was  levied  throughout  England  for  the  expedition. 
The   entries   concerning   tallage   which   appear   in   the   Pipe   Roll   of 
1242  belong  to  the  levy  of  1241.    Matthew  Paris  says  that  in  1243  the 
citizens  of  London  were  compelled  to  pay  a  tallage  under  the  follow- 
ing form:  "Venerunt  exactores  et  regales  aeditui  ad  ilium  vel  ilium 
civem,   dicentes;    'Tantam    et   tantam   oportet   te    pecuniam    domino 
regi,  in  longinquis  partibus  pro  commoditate  regni  militant!  et  nimis 
indigenti,  donee  in  regno  suo  restauretur,  commodare.'     Et  secundum 
voluntatem  et  aestimationem  extortorum  pecuniam  civium  mutilarunt" 
(Matthew  Paris,  IV,  242).     Probably  this  was  done,  for  in  the  Pipe 
Roll  of  1242  two  Londoners  pay  each  £40  "de  auxilio"   (Pipe  Roll, 
26  Henry  III,  Lond.  and  Midd.). 

is  Close  Rolls,  IV,  486. 

227 


STUDIES  IN  TAXATION 

because  he  accompanied  the  king.16  The  date,  October  13, 
is  that  on  which  the  scutage  was  to  be  paid  at  the  exche- 
quer by  the  sheriff  according  to  the  writ  of  May  19; 
the  order  suggests  therefore  that  the  scutage  had  already 
been  put  in  charge  on  May  1.  On  this  same  date,  May  1, 
the  king  acknowledged  the  receipt  of  fifty  marks  on  April 
30  from  the  abbot  of  Hyde  in  aid  of  his  crossing  and 
released  him  of  the  scutage  due  on  five  of  the  twenty  fees 
which  the  abbot  held.17  Men  fined  before  the  king  started 
with  the  proviso  "saving  to  the  king  his  scutage."1  It 
seems  clear  therefore  that  the  levy  was  fixed  before  the 
king  crossed. 

The  account  of  the  tax  in  the  Pipe  Roll  is  incomplete. 
The  title  is  "Fines  militum  ne  transfretent  cum  rege  in 
Wasconiam  praeter  scutagia  sua  quae  regi  sponte  conces- 
serunt  ad  istam  transfretationem."  The  returns  of  the 
scutage  (at  three  marks)  are  not  given;19  no  lists  of  men 
granted  writs  of  quittance  appear;  only  fines  for  default 

i«  Vincent,  p.  116.    Other  cases  are  cited  here. 

17  Col.  Pat.  Rolls,  I,  284;  Madox,  I,  609,  n.  d.  The  writ  in  Madox 
was  issued  27  Henry  III.  On  May  4,  1242,  the  sheriffs  were  ordered 
to  allow  the  abbot  of  Hyde  to  have  his  scutage  "ad  respondendum 
inde  regi  scaccarium"  (Fine  Roll,  no.  38,  part  1,  m.  3). 

is  Vincent,  p.  117.  The  introduction  of  this  saving  clause  shows 
that  the  scutage  had  been  declared.  Had  the  levy  not  been  fixed 
already,  the  clause  introduced  would  have  indicated  that  fact.  Cf. 
the  fines  in  connection  with  the  campaign  against  Richard  Marshal 
in  1233,  which  were  made  when  no  scutage  had  been  put  in  charge; 
they  say  "si  scutagium  currat"  (see  above,  p.  206). 

is  The  scutage  does  not  appear  in  the  later  Pipe  Rolls.  The 
account  was  made  in  a  separate  roll,  which  is  mentioned  in  the  Pipe 
Roll:  "sicut  continetur  in  rotulo  compoti  hujus  scutagii"  (Pipe  Roll, 
27  Henry  III,  passim,  from  Hall,  Red  Book,  II,  p.  clxxxix,  note  5). 
Mr.  Hall  speaks  as  though  only  the  scutages  which  were  unpaid  at 
Michaelmas,  1242,  were  entered  in  this  roll,  but  all  the  scutage  which 
came  in  was  entered  in  it:  "Hec  summa  vera  est  et  soluta  unde 
vicecomes  protulit  talliam  coram  baronibus  a  die  S.  Michaelis  in  xv 
dies  anno  xxvito"  (Testa,  p.  14b).  This  seems  to  refer  to  the  com- 
potus  which  the  sheriff  presented  at  the  exchequer  on  October  13, 
1-24-2,  the  date  when  the  first  rendering  of  the  scutage  was  due. 

228 


UNDER  JOHN  AND  HENRY  III 

«• 

of  service  are  entered  and  the  list  of  these  is  not  com- 
plete. The  title  implies  that  all  these  fines  were  paid  in 
addition  to  the  scutage.  This  is  not  always  the  case; 
sometimes  the  fine  included  the  scutage.20  The  scutage 
was  not  an  aid  in  the  technical  sense,  but  was  the  compo- 
sition for  service.21  Those  tenants  who  were  in  the  host 
did  not  pay  it,  but  were  granted  permission  to  collect  it 
for  their  own  use  from  their  vassals.  There  is  a  roll 
containing  the  names  of  seventy-seven  tenants  who 
accompanied  the  king  and  for  this  reason  received  writs 
de  habendo  scutagio.22  The  order  instructing  the  sheriff 
to  collect  scutages  exempted  those  who  had  such  writs.23 
Mention  should  be  made  in  this  connection  of  the  king's 
letter  of  June  8,  directing  fines  to  be  remitted  and  even 
money  paid  in  addition  to  those  tenants  who  would  join 
him  in  France.24  This  seems  evidence  enough  to  show 
that  the  tenant  in  chief  was  exempt  from  all  taxation  on 
his  tenement,  if  he  served.  Nor  was  it  necessary  for  a 
vassal  to  provide  his  full  contingent  in  order  to  be  exempt 
from  all  money  payment.25 

Some  tenants  who  failed  to  perform  their  service  did 
not  escape  with  scutage  only.  Fines  were  also  levied, 
often  very  heavy.  A  few  cases  may  be  given:  William 
de  Percy,  100m  on  15  fees  ;28  Gilbert  de  Umfravill, 
100m;27  John  de  Bayeux,  100m;28  Henry  de  Pinkney, 

20  See  below,  note  35. 

21  Not  the  full  composition  in  all  cases,  perhaps  not  in  most,  but 
not  a  general  aid  on  knights'  fees. 

22  Scutage  Rolls,  No.  6;  Bristol  and  Glouc.,  etc.,  XIV,  22,  note. 
For  such  writs,  see  Close  RolU,  IV,  489-493. 

23  Madox,  I,  682,  n.  s;  see  above,  p.  227,  note  15. 
2*  See  above  p.  225,  note  9. 

25  See  above,  p.  226,  note  12. 

26  Pipe  Roll,  26  Henry  III,  York. 

27  Ibid.,  Northumb.    He  held  2^  fees. 

28  Ibid.,  Line.     The  servitium  of  this  fee  was  20  knights   (Round, 
Feudal  England,  p.  253) ;  the  old  enfeoffment  was  151^  fees  and  the 

229 


STUDIES  IN  TAXATION 

30m  ;29  Elias  Giffard,  35m,  9  fees  ;30  Robert  de  Evering- 
ham,  50m  not  to  cross  and  to  have  his  scutage  ;81  Thomas 
Gresley,  100m  not  to  cross  and  to  have  his  scutage;32 
Roger  de  Merlai,  50m  on  4  fees.33  The  amount  of  fines 
charged  in  the  Pipe  Roll  in  twenty-nine  counties  was 
3,146  marks  of  which  1,555  marks  were  entered  as  paid. 
There  seems  to  have  been  a  tendency  to  separate  the  fine 
from  the  scutage.  The  title  of  the  levy  in  the  Pipe  Roll 
speaks  of  "fines  .  .  .  praeter  scutagia"  and  there  was  a 
separate  account  of  the  scutage.  Some  of  the  fines  were 
evidently  payments  in  addition  to  the  scutage;34  other 
fines  however  included  the  scutage.35  There  was  nothing 
new  in  the  separation  of  the  two  payments  and  we  can 
hardly  say  whether  or  not  the  practice  was  more  common 

new,  4%  fees  (Red  Book,  I,  387) ;  in  1230  and  1246  it  accounted  for 
lfy&i>  fees  (pipe  Roll,  14  and  30  Henry  III,  Line.). 

2»  Ibid.,  Bucks  and  Bedf . ;  15  fees ;  probably  a  fine  in  addition  to 
scutage. 

so/fttd.,  Glouc. 

si  Vincent,  p.  117,  quoting  Fine  Roll,  26  Henry  III. 

32  Vincent,  p.  118,  quoting  Fine  Roll,  26  Henry  III;  12  fees. 

33  Pipe  Roll,  26  Henry  III,  Northumb. 

s*  E.g.  the  countess  of  Warwick,  100s  (ibid.,  Oxon.) ;  William  Fitz 
Hamon,  10m  (ibid.,  Bucks  and  Bedf.);  Robert  de  Novo  Burgo,  20m; 
Walter  de  Estleg,  10  fees,  10m  (ibid.,  Dors,  and  Somers.). 

ss  Robert  de  Everingham  paid  50m  not  to  cross  and  to  have  his 
scutage  (Vincent,  p.  117) ;  similarly,  Thomas  Gresley,  100m  (ibid., 
p.  118) ;  Gilbert  Gaunt  "finem  fecit  cum  rege  pro  eodem  (scutagio 
suo  et  pro  relaxacione  passagii  sui)  per  CC  marc."  (ibid.).  He  held 
68^4  fees  so  that  he  really  paid  only  scutage.  John  de  Bayeux,  100m 
"de  eisdem  finibus"  (Pipe  Roll,  26  Henry  III,  Line.);  this  fine  in- 
cludes his  scutage,  for  "finem  fecit  pro  habendo  scutagiis  suis  per  C 
marcas"  (Testa,  p.  306b).  The  earl  of  Warwick,  180  marks  "pro 
omnibus  feodis  suis  et  pro  habendo  scutagio  suo"  (Pipe  Roll,  above, 
War.  and  Leic.) ;  in  the  Fine  Roll  he  is  charged  with  the  same 
amount  "pro  scutagio  suo  et  pro  relaxacione  passagii  sui"  (Vincent, 
above).  He  held  102%  fees.  Dugdale,  I,  72b,  quotes  the  rolls  of 
25  and  26  Henry  III  to  show  that  the  earl  paid  two  fines  of  £120  each, 
one  to  be  absent  from  attendance  on  the  king  in  Gascony  and  the 
other  to  levy  scutage  on  his  tenants.  It  is  unlikely  that  there  were 
two  distinct  fines. 

230 


this  year  than  in  previous  years.     Some,  perhaps  all,  of 
the  fines  were  levied  at  the  beginning  of  the  campaign.36 

The  method  of  collection  of  the  levy  varied.  If  a  tenant 
in  chief  received  a  writ  for  having  his  scutage,  he  col- 
lected from  his  tenants  and  accounted  either  to  the  sheriff 
or  to  the  exchequer.  Such  a  writ  was  granted  both  to 
tenants  who  fined  and  to  those  who  paid  scutage.  If  the 
tenant  did  not  secure  the  writ  the  great  council  had  pro- 
vided that  the  sheriff  should  collect  from  his  rear-vassals.37 

36  Vincent,  above ;  cf.  Rymer,  I,  246 ;  the  king  writes  from  France, 
June  8:  "Fines   vero  quos   a  quibusdam   militibus   recepimus";   see 
above,  p.  228. 

37  The  writ  of  collection  of  May  19  orders  the  sheriff  "quod  de 
omnibus  feodis  militum  que  tenentur  de  tenentibus  de  nobis  in  capita 
in  balliva  tua  et  que  ipsi  de  nobis  tenent  in  capite  que  quidem  brevia 
nostra  tibi  non  tulerint  de  habendo  scutagio  suo  etc.  .  .  .  scutagium 
nostrum  colligi  facias"  (Close  Rolls,  IV,  486).    This  means  that  the 
sheriff  will  collect  from  the  rear-vassals  unless  the  tenant  in  chief 
has  a  writ  which  empowers  him  to  collect.     The  expression  "brevia 
nostra  .  .  .  de  habendo   scutagio  suo"   refers   not  only  to  the  men 
who  have  performed  their  service  and  hence  have  their  scutage  for 
their  own  use,  but  also  to  those  who  have  fined  and  those  who  pay 
scutage  only  and  who  are  allowed  to  collect  from  their  vassals.    For 
cases  of  the  latter,  see  note  35;  also  the  case  of  Earl  Ferrers  (Testa, 
p.  15a)  from  whose  tenants  the  sheriff  collects  nothing,  but  who  will 
respond  himself.     The   abbot  of  Peterborough,   60   fees,  paid   £120 
(his  scutage  only)   at  the  exchequer  "licet  non  colligerit  illud  scuta- 
gium, ut  dicit,  nee  milites  sui  qui  de  illo  tenent  scutagia  sua  solverunt 
et  ideo  tibi    (vicecomiti)   praecipimus  que  sis  in  auxilio  ipsi  abbati 
ubi  non  sufficiat  in  balliva  tua  ad  distringendum  dictos  milites  suos 
ad  reddendum  ei  scutagia  sua  de  quibus  illos  acquietavit  ad  scacca- 
rium  (Exch.  L.  T.  R.  Mem.  Roll,  27  Henry  III,  m.  3).     The  abbot 
of  Westminster  was  allowed  to  collect  his  scutage  from  his  tenants 
(ibid.);  also  Robert  de  Stafford   (ibid.,  28  Henry  III,  m.  2).     See 
also  the  cases  of  Ada,  wife  of  John,  son  of  Robert  (Close  Rolls,  IV, 
452);   the   abbot  of   Hyde    (see    above,   p.   228);    William    Marshal 
(Excerpta,  I,  390).     But  if  the  tenant  did  not  secure  such  a  writ, 
the  sheriff  collected  from  the  rear-vassals.     If  such  a  tenant  tried 
to  collect,  the  rear-vassal  could  appeal  to  the  king  who  would  inter- 
fere to  prevent  it.     Thus  Payn  de  Clermund  was  summoned  before 
the  exchequer  to  explain  why  he  had  distrained  his  tenant  William 
Hayrun  "contra  provisionem  prasdictam,"  viz.,  "quod  scutagia  nobis 
concessa   ad   transfretationem   nostram   in   Wasconiam   colligerentur 

231 


STUDIES  IN  TAXATION 

This  was  the  method  employed  in  the  aid  of  1217;  doubt- 
less the  same  method  was  often  followed  in  the  collection 
of  a  scutage. 

per  vicecomites  nostros"  (Madox,  I,  682,  n.  r).  The  case  of  Alexan- 
der Swereford:  "Questus  est  nobis  .  .  .  Alexandr*  thesaurarius  S. 
Pauli  London'  que  cum  per  commune  consilium  regni  nostri  sit 
provisum  quod  scutagia  nobis  concessa  .  .  .  colligantur  per  manus 
vicecomitum  in  singulis  comitatibus  exceptis  feodis  illorum  quibus 
scutagia  sua  concessimus,  H.  comes  Kanciae  distringit  eum  pro 
scutagio  unius  militis  in  warda  sua  in  Middleton'  licet  non  con- 
cesserimus  eidem  scutagia  sua  et  que  tu  (the  sheriff)  potius  deberes 
levare  quam  ipse,"  and  so  the  goods  of  Alexander  are  to  be  released 
and  he  is  to  be  distrained  by  no  one  but  the  sheriff  (Exch.  L.  T.  R. 
Mem.  Roll,  27  Henry  III,  m.  4).  These  writs  might  seem  to  mean 
that  the  sheriff  collected  from  all  the  rear-vassals,  but  the  cases  cited 
above  show  that  he  took  it  only  from  the  sub-tenants  of  those  barons 
who  had  not  writs  for  collecting  their  own  scutage.  Whether  the 
sub-tenant  always  held  his  lord  to  the  strict  letter  of  the  provision 
concerning  the  method  of  collection,  we  cannot  say.  The  reason  for 
the  protest  in  the  two  cases  cited  above  was  not  merely  that  the 
tenant  in  chief  collected  without  the  king's  authority.  Payn  de 
Clermund  had  distrained  his  tenant  for  scutage  "et  etiam  plus  quam 
idem  Willelmus  recognoscit  se  debere";  concerning  the  fee  of  Alexan- 
der Swereford,  "pendet  adhuc  placitum  in  curia  nostra  coram  justic' 
nostris  inter  dictum  comitem  (who  had  distrained  it)  et  Willelmum 
de  Bellocampo  ad  quern  illorum  pertinebit  dicta  warda."  In  another 
case  in  which  the  tenant  in  chief  had  collected  from  the  rear-vassal 
"contra  provisionem  nostram  desicut  vicecomes  noster  per  praeceptum 
nostrum  praedictum  scutagium  nostrum  debuit  colligisse,"  the  sheriff 
was  merely  ordered  to  release  the  distraint  which  he  had  made 
against  the  rear-vassal  and  distrain  the  tenant  in  chief  to  pay  at 
the  exchequer  (Exch.  L.  T.  R.  Mem.  Roll,  27  Henry  III,  m.  2,  the 
case  of  Robert  le  Buteiler  and  David  de  GarpunvilT,  his  lord).  But 
a  writ  on  the  Close  Roll  possibly  refers  to  the  collection  of  scutage 
from  rear-vassals  by  tenants  in  chief  who  had  not  received  the  king's 
permission  to  do  this;  if  so,  it  indicates  that  the  king  intended  to 
prevent  such  collection:  the  regents  were  to  inquire  "qui  magnates  de 
Anglia,  sive  episcopi,  sive  alii,  tallagium  vel  scutagium  in  auctoritate 
sua  propria  super  liberos  homines  suos  assiderunt  et  ab  eisdem  ea 
ceperunt  contra  consuetudinem  Anglic  .  .  .  ita  quod  rex  ...  in  ad- 
ventu  suo  in  Angliam  possit  testincari"  (Michel,  no.  1633).  The 
collector  of  the  scutage  might  be  an  official  other  than  the  sheriff; 
in  Gloucestershire,  it  was  the  abbot  of  Chichester  (Bristol,  etc.,  XIV, 
19-37). 

232 


UNDER  JOHN  AND  HENRY  III 

This  scutage  was  to  be  paid  by  all  knights'  fees  on  the 
holdings  of  lay  tenants  and  religious  houses.38  It  was 
believed  that  many  of  these  fees  were  escaping  taxation 
and  a  determined  effort  was  made  to  ascertain  the  total 
amount  of  land  held  by  military  service  in  England.39  In 
the  writ  of  collection  of  May  19  the  sheriff  had  been 
ordered  to  find  out  and  report  on  October  13  the  number 
of  fees  held  in  his  bailiwick  both  of  the  old  and  the  new 
enfeoffment.40  The  returns  made  were  evidently  unsatis- 
factory. This  was  due  partly  at  least  to  the  opposition 
of  the  tenants.  On  October  29,  another  order  was  issued 
in  sharper  language.  The  sheriffs  had  been  negligent; 
if  they  did  not  wish  their  own  lands  and  chattels  to  be 
seized  by  the  government,  they  were  to  present  at  the 
exchequer  on  December  7  all  the  arrears  of  scutage  and 
a  complete  report  of  all  fees.  Any  tenant  who  opposed 
the  collection  or  the  inquest  was  to  be  summoned  before 
the  exchequer  barons.41  But  the  report  rendered  in  con- 
sequence of  this  order  was  unsatisfactory.  Many  men 
had  claimed  that  they  did  not  hold  by  military  service  of 
any  one  and  hence  owed  no  scutage.  Accordingly,  on 
December  9,  new  writs  were  issued  containing  detailed 

ss  The  writs  cited  below  say  that  the  scutage  was  to  be  paid  both 
on  the  new  and  the  old  enfeoffment;  these  terms  are  not  used  in 
the  technical  sense  employed  in  the  reign  of  Henry  II  and  his  sons. 
They  mean  all  the  land  held  by  military  service  whenever  enfeoffed 
(see  the  form  of  the  inquest,  Madox,  I,  681,  n.  g). 

39  Although  the  bishops  did  not  pay  on  all  their  fees,  they  were  to 
certify  to  the  king  the  number  of  fees  held  of  them  (see  the  report 
of  the  bishop  of  Worcester,  Testa,  p.  44b). 

40  Close  Rolls,  IV,  486.    This  report  was  to  cover  all  fees  whether 
or  not  the  tenant  in  chief  owed  scutage.    See  below,  p.  234,  note  43, 
where  the  sheriff  later  tried  to  hold  inquests  on  the  lands  of  tenants 
who  had   writs   of  quittance,   but  as   they  were  unwilling,  he   was 
unable  to  do  so. 

41  Madox,  I,  682,  n.  s;  "et  si  quos  inveneris  tibi  resistentes  quo 
minus  colligere  praedicta  scutagia  et  inquisitionem  praedictam  facere 
possis,  summone  eos  .  .  .  quod  tune  sint  coram  baronibus  responsuri." 

233 


STUDIES  IN  TAXATION 

instructions  for  an  inquest  of  knights'  fees  all  over  Eng- 
land. This  was  not  to  be  done  as  in  1235  by  the  tenants 
in  chief.  The  sheriff  was  to  conduct  it  by  the  aid  of 
twelve  legal  men,  knights  or  others,  who  were  under  oath. 
They  were  to  inquire  the  location  of  all  fees,  the  number 
each  man  held  and  of  whom  he  held  them.42  All  this 
information  together  with  the  arrears  of  scutage  was  to 
be  delivered  at  the  exchequer  on  January  27,  1243.43  The 
opposition  of  the  tenants  to  the  inquests  was  so  strong 
that  on  January  30,  a  writ  was  issued  to  the  sheriffs 
directing  them  not  to  hold  the  inquests  on  the  lands  of 
those  tenants  who  had  writs  for  having  their  scutage.4* 
The  king's  effort  to  get  a  complete  report  of  the  land 
held  by  military  service  therefore  failed.  These  inquests 
are  of  interest  because  they  were  made  for  purposes  of 
taxation;  they  are  another  example  of  the  use  of  the  jury 
in  that  connection.  All  this,  the  collection  from  rear- 
vassals  by  the  sheriff  or  some  special  collector,  the 
inquests,  the  separation  of  the  fine  from  the  scutage,  indi- 

42  In  addition,  a  roll  was  to  be  drawn  up  of  the  other  lands  of 
the  county  made  out  by  hundreds,  containing  the  names  of  the  vills 
and  their  holders,  of  whom  and  by  what  service  they  held  them 
(Madox,  I,  681,  n.  q). 

*s  Madox,  I,  681,  n.  p,  q;  Farrer,  Lane.  Inquests,  p.  145.  The 
writs  both  of  October  and  December  show  that  tenants  paid  the 
scutage  unwillingly  and  opposed  the  inquest.  If  the  tenant  was 
unwilling,  the  sheriff  was  unable  to  hold  the  inquest:  "Comes  de 
Ferrar  fecit  de  securitate  satisfac'  de  scutagio.  Et  ballivi  sui  non 
permittunt  quod  vicecomes  intret  infra  libertatem  suam  ad  inquiren- 
dum  quot  feoda  militum  teneantur  de  ipso'U  "isti  vero  qui  habent 
breve  de  habendo  scutagio  non  permittunt  quod  inquisitio  fiat  de 
feodis  militum  que  teneantur  de  ipsis";  the  names  of  seventeen 
tenants  follow  (Testa,  p.  15a). 

«  "Mandatum  est  vicecomiti  (Oxon')  quod  nullam  faceret  inquisi- 
tionem  in  comitatu  suo  de  feodis  praelatorum,  baronum,  vel  militum 
qui  tulerunt  sibi  brevia  regis  de  scutagiis  suis  habendis;  quia  rex 
non  vult  quod  inquisiciones  fiant  de  feodis  illorum  de  quibus  non 
recepit  scutagia  sua"  (Exch.  L.  T.  R.  Mem.  Roll,  27  Henry  III,  m. 
6  d).  This  order  was  given  to  the  sheriffs  of  nineteen  other  counties. 

234 


UNDER  JOHN  AND  HENRY  III 

cates  a  tendency  to  make  the  scutage  a  general  tax  pay- 
able at  the  exchequer.  The  fine  represented  the  service 
of  the  tenant  in  chief  for  his  holding;  the  scutage  levied 
on  the  holdings  of  the  rear-vassals  was  their  fine  for  ser- 
vice. As  most  of  the  rear-vassals  did  not  go  on  the 
campaign,  the  scutage  would  become  in  effect  a  general 
tax  on  knights'  fees.  At  the  same  time,  the  king  retained 
his  right  to  demand  service  or  a  fine  from  his  barons. 
But  it  must  be  remembered  that  those  tenants  who  served 
obtained  the  scutage  on  all  their  fees,  that  there  were 
tenants  who  paid  scutage  only,  that  both  these  and  those 
who  fined  might  collect  from  their  vassals,  and  that  the 
inquests  were  incomplete.  Thus  as  far  as  the  exchequer 
was  concerned,  this  levy  differed  in  no  respect  from  pre- 
vious levies  of  scutage;  part  of  the  fees  paid  to  the  king 
and  part  did  not. 

Distraint  was  used  to  force  tenants  to  pay  the  scu- 
tage.45 If  the  sub-tenant  continued  to  be  unwilling,  it 
seems  to  have  been  difficult  to  compel  him  to  pay.  In 
1247,  Henry  de  Tracy  had  not  collected  all  the  scutage 
due  him  from  his  vassals  and  the  sheriff  was  ordered  to 
come  to  his  assistance.48  What  authority  had  the  king 
for  making  this  levy?  A  writ  issued  in  1242  states  that 
the  scutage  was  granted  "per  commune  consilium  regni."4 
The  Pipe  Roll  says  that  the  scutages  were  willingly 

45  Madox,   I,   672,   n.   i;  "mandatum   est   vicecomiti   Kanciae   quod 
averia  militum  qui   tenent   de   R.   comite   Pictaviae  et   Cornubiae   in 
balliva  sua  de  dote  comitisse  Isabelle  quondam  uxoris  suae  et  que 
averia  cepit  pro  scutagio  deliberari  faciat"   (Close  Rolls,  IV,  477)  ; 
for  the  earl  of  Oxford,  Johanna  Briwere  and  Hugh  de  Verly  (ibid., 
466,  471,  478).     Distraint  was   made  both  on  the   demesne  of  the 
tenant  in  chief  and  on  his  vassals;  each  of  the  latter  was  to  pay 
only  so  much  as  pertained  to  his   fees    (case  of  Henry  de  Merck, 
ibid.,  469). 

46  Madox,  I,  677,  n.  e;  in  1254  all  of  the  scutage  of  1242  had  not 
been  paid,  e.g.  fee  of  William  de  Kaines  (Exch.  K.  R.,  38  Henry  III, 
Mem.  Roll,  m.  27  d). 

<7  Madox,  I,  681,  n.  p. 

235 


STUDIES  IN  TAXATION 

granted  by  the  knights.48  As  the  king  demanded  and 
obtained  military  service  from  his  tenants,  as  he  took 
scutage  from  those  only  who  failed  to  serve,  and  as  he 
was  able  to  levy  fines  as  well  as  scutage  on  recalcitrants, 
it  is  likely  that  he  took  the  scutage  because  of  his  right 
to  military  service.  Probably  the  king  consulted  with 
the  tenants  concerning  the  levy  and  they  agreed  that  the 
rate  should  be  three  marks  per  fee  and  that  the  collection 
should  be  made  at  the  opening  of  the  campaign.  To  this 
extent,  it  may  be  said  that  they  granted  the  scutage. 

The  bishops  made  a  separate  arrangement  as  they 
had  done  in  1229.  Instead  of  paying  a  scutage,  they 
granted  an  aid  at  three  marks  per  fee  and  on  their  servi- 
tium  debitum  only.  They  received  letters  patent  stating 
that  the  grant  should  not  form  a  precedent.  They  were 
allowed  to  collect  the  aid  from  their  tenants.49  It  is  diffi- 
cult to  see  why  the  bishops  should  pay  an  aid  instead  of 
a  scutage,  as  it  was  a  denial  of  the  king's  right  to  military 
service  in  France.  The  last  sentence  of  the  letters  patent 

48  "Fines  militum  .  .  .  praeter  scutagia  sua  que  regi  sponte  con- 
cesserunt  ad  istam  trans  fretationem." 

«  Madox,  I,  609,  n.  c;  Close  Rolls,  IV,  487 ;  if  a  rear-vassal  was 
exempt,  so  was  his  lord  (ibid.,  507,  fees  held  of  the  bishop  of  Nor- 
wich). It  is  not  stated  when  the  bishops  made  this  grant,  but  it  is 
likely  that  it  was  done  early  in  May.  The  orders  to  the  sheriffs  to 
aid  the  bishops  to  collect  the  aid  from  their  tenants  were  issued 
on  May  21.  The  Tewkesbury  chronicler  speaks  of  a  meeting  of  the 
bishops  at  London  about  May  6  and  this  was  probably  the  assembly 
which  agreed  to  the  aid.  The  chronicler  states  that  the  king  crossed 
to  Gascony  on  May  6  and  that  the  abbot  paid  him  20m  at  Ports- 
mouth; he  continues:  "audito  ibidem  de  morte  Nicholai  personae  de 
Merlawe,  dominus  abbas  adivit  episcopum  Lincolniae  apud  Londoniam, 
ubi  tune  multi  fuerunt  episcopi  in  unum  congregati"  (Theok.,  p. 
122).  It  was  not  granted  before  May  2,  for  on  that  date  the  king 
issued  at  Marwell  the  following  writ:  "Rex  concessit  Roberto  le 
Noreis  senescallo  N.  Dunholm'  episcopi  quod  per  scutagium  suum 
regi  dandum  quietus  sit  de  transfret'  in  Pictaviam;  et  mandatum 
est  vicecomiti  Cantebr'  quod  per  predictum  scutagium  ei  pacem  de 
trans fretacione  predicta  habere  permittat"  (Fine  Roll,  26  Henry  III, 
part  1,  m.  3). 


UNDER  JOHN  AND  HENRY  III 

may  have  been  added  by  the  king  to  prevent,  if  possible, 
such  an  interpretation.  He  declares  that  this  concession 
which  he  has  made  shall  neither  increase  nor  decrease  his 
own  rights  nor  those  of  his  heirs.50  Although  the  aid  was 
to  be  paid  only  on  the  servitium  debitum,  the  inquest  into 
the  military  service  in  England  extended  to  the  fees  of  the 
clergy.51 

A  donum  also  was  asked  from  religious  houses,  both 
from  those  which  held  by  military  tenure  and  those  which 
did  not.  In  the  case  of  the  former,  it  did  not  take  the 
place  of  the  scutage.  The  abbot  of  Hyde  gave  50m.  He 
was  pardoned  the  scutage  of  five  of  his  twenty  fees.52 
Requests  were  already  made  from  the  prelates  in  the 
council  of  January,  1242.53  The  work  was  continued  by 
special  collectors  and  the  sheriffs  throughout  the  king- 
dom.54 Many  of  these  amounts  were  paid  before  the  king 
set  out.55  There  was  no  assessment  of  property;  each 
house  paid  a  lump  sum.  An  aid  was  also  asked  from  the 

50  "Nolumus    etiam   quod   per   hanc    concessionem   nostram    quam 
fecimus,  nobis  et  heredibus  nostris  accrescat  vel  decrescat"  (Madox, 
above).     It  may  relate  to  the  king's  concession  to  the  bishops  to 
collect  the  aid  from  their  tenants. 

51  The  clergy  reported  the  number  of  their  fees  and  an  inquest 
was  not  held  on  their  lands  by  the  sheriff  and  the  twelve  legal  men; 
e.g.  the  bishop  of  Worcester  made  a  report  of  his  fees  to  the  king 
(Testa,  p.  44b). 

52  Gal.  Pat.  Rolls,  I,  284. 

ss  "Petensque  ab  eis  auxilium  pecuniare,  (rex)  ait;  Ecce,  quid 
concessit  ille  abbas  mihi  in  subsidium;  ecce,  quid  alius;  et  protendens 
rotulum,  in  quo  scriptum  monstravit,  quid  ille  vel  ille  abbas  vel 
prior  tantum  vel  tantum  promisit  se  daturum"  (Matthew  Paris,  IV, 
182). 

54  The  king  sent  a  clerk  to  cooperate  with  the  sheriff  in  the  dioceses 
of  Lincoln  and  Ely  (Gal.  Pat.  Rolls,  I,  272,  282,  28T) ;  Matthew  Paris, 
IV,  189;  Theok.,  p.  122. 

55  Bristol,  etc.,  XIV,  20-21 ;  in  the   Testa  are  given  lists  of  con- 
tributors,   many   of   them    small;    the    total    amount   given   there   is 
l,685i/^  marks   (Testa,  pp.  22a,  37b,  44a,  etc.).     Some  cases  follow: 
abbot  of  St.  Mary's  of  York,  100m;  prior  of  Kenilworth,  30m;  prior 
of  St.  Swithin,  200m ;  prior  of  Worcester,  30m ;  abbot  of  St.  Edmunds, 

237 


STUDIES  IN  TAXATION 

Cistercians  and  Premonstratensians  before  the  king 
crossed,  but  the  request  was  refused.56  In  October,  the 
former  were  again  asked  to  contribute  and  again  refused ; 
then  the  king  asked  for  their  wool  for  a  year.  This  they 
refused  on  the  ground  that  such  a  contribution  needed  the 
consent  of  the  order.57  The  clergy  in  Ireland  were  asked 
to  contribute  with  the  promise  that  the  grant  should  not 
form  a  precedent.  What  answer  was  given  is  not  known.58 
The  several  devices  employed  to  raise  money  increased 
the  revenue  of  the  year.  The  Pells  Issue  Rolls  for  1242 
record  £38,606  10s  l%d,  to  which,  according  to  Ramsay, 
should  be  added  the  average  amount  received  directly  at 
the  king's  wardrobe,  about  £7,000,  and  so  we  get  a  total 
income  for  the  year  of  about  £45,000  (67,500  marks).69 
From  March,  1242,  till  September,  1243,  the  king  gave 
orders  covering  over  £36,000  from  England,  all  of  which 
was  spent  either  in  Gascony  or  in  preparation  for  the 
expedition.60  While  abroad,  he  borrowed  about  £1 0,000. 61 

100m;  abbot  of  Abingdon,  100m;  bishop  of  St.  Davids,  40m;  prior 
of  Lewes,  50m  (Cal.  Pat.  Rolls,  I,  278-298);  these  sums  were  all 
received  between  March  28  and  May  20,  1242.  See  also,  Close  Rolls, 
IV,  417-421,  430,  431;  Vincent,  p.  60;  Theok.,  p.  122;  Wig.,  p.  433. 

se  Cal.  Pat.  Rolls,  I,  279,  280;  Close  Rolls,  IV,  430. 

57  Cal.  Pat.  Rolls,  I,  330,  336;  Matthew  Paris,  IV,  234-235. 

68  Cal.  Pat.  Rolls,  I,  378;  Close  Rolls,  IV,  407. 

59  R.  J.  Whitwell  in  E.  H.  R.,  XVIII,  710;  Ramsay,  Dawn  of  the 
Const.,  pp.  294-295. 

oo  Orders  were  issued  to  pay  the  following  sums :  3,000m  on 
March  7;  3,005m  9s  6%d,  April  19;  10,000m  out  of  the  exchequer  of 
the  Jews  on  the  same  date;  291m,  April  25.  The  following  sums 
were  acknowledged  as  received  in  Gascony  from  England:  2,500m, 
July  27;  5,345m  7s  9d,  October  17;  10,000m,  January  8,  1243;  12,000m, 
April  16;  2,000m,  July  8;  6,000m,  August  30.  This  gives  a  total  of 
54,142m  3s  lid  or  over  £36,000  (Cal.  Pat.  Rolls,  I,  274,  281,  282,  313, 
332,  355,  372,  384,  394).  We  cannot  be  certain  that  the  sums  ordered 
out  of  the  exchequer  were  actually  paid,  but  they  do  not  appear 
excessive  unless  one  takes  exception  to  the  10,000  marks  of  the  Jews. 
As  to  that,  it  must  be  remembered  that  a  tallage  of  20,000  marks 
had  been  levied  on  them  in  1241  and  that  this  sum  must  have  come 
in  part  into  the  exchequer. 

238 


UNDER  JOHN  AND  HENRY  III 

Some  of  the  loans  were  repaid  out  of  moneys  received 
in  Gascony  from  the  English  treasury,  but  some  were  to 
be  paid  at  the  exchequer  in  England.  The  cost  of  the 
expedition  therefore  will  probably  approach  £40,000 
(60,000  marks).62 

THE  SCOTTISH  CAMPAIGN,  1244 

On  May  13,  the  host  was  summoned  to  meet  on  August 

I  at   Newcastle-on-Tyne   for  a  campaign  against   Scot- 

61  Ibid.,  315-406.    Part  of  this  money  is  given  in  pounds  and  shill- 
ings of  Bordeaux  which  I  have  reduced  to  English  money  at  the  rate 
of  3  li.  (—  60s)  to  1m  sterling,  but  the  ratio  fluctuated  (ibid.,  368, 
389). 

62  With  this  account  of  the  scutage,  compare  Stubbs,  Const.  Hist. 

II  (3rd  ed.),  61:  "Henry  wished  to  raise  as  his  father  had  done,  a 
scutage  by  way  of  fine   from  the  barons   who  had  left  him  alone 
in    Gascony,    besides    that    which    he    received,    twenty    shillings    on 
the  fee,   from  those  who  had  stayed  at  home."     Stubbs  bases  this 
on  Matthew  Paris,  IV,  227,  233.     But  the  chronicler  does  not  refer 
to  the  levy  of  a  scutage  of  twenty  shillings  as  a  fine  on  those  who 
had  left  the  king  in  Gascony.     He  says  that  Henry  III  wished  to 
confiscate  the  lands  of  those  who  had  left  him  as  if  they  were  traitors, 
but  that  the  archbishop  of  York  did  not  do  so  (IV,  230-231).     The 
reference  on  p.  227  speaks  of  a  scutage  of  20s  which  "per  totam 
Angliam"  the  king  "fecit  extorqueri";  that  on  p.  233  is  as  follows: 
"Prseter   scutagium   quod   extorserat    rex    Angliae,   omnia   jam   con- 
sumpserat  inutiliter  quae  in  bonis  habuit  et  eguit.     [This  is  the  title 
of  the  chapter.]     Ipso  quoque  tempore,  rex  a  Pictavensibus  et  Was- 
conensibus    undique    delusus,    immo    potius    defraudatus,    in    tantam 
paupertatem  et  ignominiam  delapsus  est,  quod  scutagio  extorto  et 
omnibus  thesauris  et  donativis  ei  collatis  inutiliter  consumptis,  necnon 
extorsionibus,  tallagiis,  et  aliis  collectis  excogitatis,  post  amissionem 
terrarum   suarum   et   honorum   in    Pictavia,   jam   in    Wasconia   acre 
alieno  graviter  est  obligatus,  licet  in  dicto  scutagio,  non  sine  multo 
gravamine    Anglorum,    pro   scuto   viginti   solidos    extorserit."      It   is 
clear  that  we  have  here  not  a  reference  to  another  scutage,  but  a 
commentary  on  the  royal  exactions  of  the  year.     Such  a  statement 
is  natural  as  this  chapter  comes  at  the  end  of  the  history  of  1242. 
All   the   other   references    speak   of   only   one   scutage   of   40s    (e.g. 
Dunst.,  p.  160;  Cont.  Flor.  Wig.,  II,  178;  Wykes,  p.  91;  Pipe  Roll, 
26  Henry  III). 

239 


STUDIES  IN  TAXATION 

land.63  The  army  assembled,  but  there  was  no  fighting. 
A  treaty  was  made;  Henry's  daughter,  Margaret,  was 
betrothed  to  Alexander's  son.  No  scutage  was  taken,  but 
some  tenants  fined  for  their  service  before  the  host 
gathered.64  These  fines  were  fixed  by  an  agreement 
between  the  king  and  the  tenant  in  chief,  and  the  rear- 
vassal  was  not  responsible  for  their  payment.  Legally 
the  latter  could  not  be  forced  to  help  his  lord  discharge 
this  debt  if  he  were  unwilling.  But  there  was  a  method 
by  which  the  sub-tenant  could  probably  be  compelled  to 
help  pay  the  fine,  or,  if  he  were  very  stubborn,  to  render 
more  than  an  equivalent.  He  could  be  legally  distrained 
by  the  sheriff  to  perform  his  military  service  for  his  lord, 
and  in  this  way,  the  king  could  practically  enforce  the 
payment  of  the  fine  by  the  sub-tenant.65  The  situation 
here  involved  indicates  the  unwillingness  with  which  rear- 
vassals  performed  their  service.66 

«3  Vincent,  Lane.  Lay  Subsidies,  p.  77,  quoting  the  Close  Roll,  28 
Henry  III;  Paris,  IV,  379-380,  385;  Lanercost,  p.  51;  Dunst.,  p.  164; 
Wint.,  p.  90;  Wav.,  p.  333;  Lords'  Report  on  the  Dignity  of  a  Peer, 
vol.  Ill,  App.  I,  p.  9. 

«*  Two  laymen  each  paid  a  fine  of  1m  to  be  exempt  from  service 
"salvo  regi  scutagio  si  scutagium  debeat  dari";  the  abbots  of  Winch- 
comb  and  Holme  fined  in  10m  and  20m  respectively  besides  scutage 
if  it  were  given;  the  abbot  of  Abingdon  fined  in  £40  "ita  quod  si 
scutagium  assessum  fuerit  pro  exercitu  illo  idem  abbas  habebit 
scutagium  suum  et  accrescet  finis  suus  usque  ad  Ix  libras"  (Fine 
Roll,  no.  41,  part  1,  m.  4).  The  archbishop  of  Canterbury  made  an 
aid  (Cal  Pat.  Rolls,  I,  433). 

65  The  bishop  of  Lincoln  fined  in  60m  in  addition  to  his  scutage, 
if  scutage  should  be  levied,  and  the  sheriff  of  Northamptonshire  was 
ordered  "quod  milites  ipsius  episcopi  qui  prefato  fine  assentire  vel 
portionem  ipsos  de  prefato  fine  contingentem  solvere  noluerint  dis- 
tringat    ad    veniendum    in    predictum    exercitum,    allocate    predicto 
episcopo  in  prefato  fine  servitio  predictorum  mill  turn  qui  in  predictum 
exercitum  venerint"  (Fine  Roll,  above). 

66  Cf.  the  case  of  the  knights  of  the  abbot  of  St.  Albans  in  this 
campaign  (Matthew  Paris,  VI,  437,  439). 


240 


UNDER  JOHN  AND  HENRY  III 

THE  AID  OF  124567 

Early  in  May,  1244,  a  meeting  of  the  great  council 
(prelates,  earls,  and  barons)68  was  held  at  Westminster. 
The  king  asked  for  an  aid  to  pay  debts  incurred  in  Gas- 
cony.  The  magnates  withdrew  to  deliberate ;  a  committee 
of  twelve  representatives  (four  each  from  the  bishops, 
the  earls,  and  the  barons)  was  appointed  to  draw  up  a 
common  reply.  They  asked  for  the  appointment  of  a 
justiciar  and  a  chancellor.  As  the  king  declined  to  agree 
to  this  the  council  was  prorogued  till  February  23,  1245. 
If  by  that  time  Henry  III  had  reformed  his  government, 
the  magnates  declared  that  they  would  consider  making 
an  aid,  but  that  it  must  be  spent  by  the  advice  of  the 
committee  of  twelve.69  On  September  9,  another  council 
of  the  prelates  and  barons  was  held  at  Windsor.  The  lay 
magnates  refused  to  do  anything  before  February.  The 
prelates  were  presented  with  a  papal  letter  which  urged 
them  to  grant  the  king  an  aid.  After  a  discussion  lasting 
seven  days,  they  too  declined  to  accede  to  the  king's 
request.70  On  February  23,  1245,  the  great  council  met71 

"  In  this  account  of  the  councils  of  1244  and  1245,  the  statement 
given  by  Plehn,  Der  Politische  Charakter  von  Matheus  Parisiensis 
(pp.  124-126)  has  been  followed. 

es  "convenerant  regia  submonitione  convocati  Londoniis  magnates 
totius  regni,  archiepiscopi,  episcopi,  abbates,  priores,  comites  et 
barones"  (Matthew  Paris,  IV,  362).  Matthew  Paris  does  not  date 
this  council.  It  met  before  the  summons  to  the  Scottish  campaign 
was  issued  (May  13).  That  summons  was  sent  out  "de  communi 
consilio  regni  nostri";  probably  the  decision  to  attack  the  Scots  was 
taken  in  the  same  council  in  which  the  aid  was  asked  for.  The 
statement  of  Matthew  Paris  that  the  king  asked  for  an  aid  to  pay 
his  debts  incurred  in  Gascony,  "sub  silentio  praeteriens  propositum 
suum  de  rege  Scotiae  potenter  expugnando,"  does  not  contradict  this 
conclusion.  That  description  applies  to  the  king's  speech  at  the 
opening  of  the  council. 

69  Matthew  Paris,  IV,  362-363. 

wDunst.,  p.  164;  Wav.,  p.  332;  Matthew  Paris,  IV,  363-366;  the 
king  was  at  Windsor  at  this  time  (Cal.  Pat.  Rolls,  I,  435).  Matthew 
Paris  speaks  of  a  meeting  of  the  magnates  on  November  3  in  which 

341 


STUDIES  IN  TAXATION 

and  after  long  discussion  agreed  to  grant  an  aid  of  twenty 
shillings  on  the  fee  to  marry  the  king's  eldest  daughter, 
half  to  be  paid  at  Easter  and  half  at  Michaelmas.72  The 
king  promised  to  observe  the  charters.  He  was  reminded 
of  the  numerous  taxes  which  he  had  received,  and  a  scheme 
for  the  reform  of  the  government  was  presented  to  him 
which  however  was  not  put  in  force.78 

In  form  this  grant  of  twenty  shillings  was  one  of  the 
feudal  aids.  It  was  not  the  kind  of  a  grant  which  the 
king  desired,  but  the  council  would  agree  to  nothing  else,74 
and  their  determination  in  this  particular  is  a  further 
illustration  of  the  united  attitude  of  the  tenants  in  chief. 
The  barons  could  not  refuse  the  aid,  but  they  apparently 
could  limit  the  rate  to  twenty  shillings.  They  also  had 
another  grievance  to  remedy,  the  number  of  fees  on  which 
the  aid  should  be  paid.  In  1235  and  1242,  the  king  tried 
to  have  all  land  held  by  military  service  contribute,  an 
effort  which  had  been  strongly  opposed  by  the  tenants 
in  the  latter  year.75  Probably  to  prevent  a  recurrence 
of  such  attempts  the  barons  in  1245  provided  that  they 

they  refused  the  king  an  aid  (IV,  395).  Plehn  rejects  this  and 
thinks  that  it  has  been  confused  with  the  meeting  of  September  9. 
His  argument  does  not  seem  conclusive. 

71  "magnatibus  cum  praelatis." 

72  Matthew  Paris,  IV,  372-373;  Dunst.,  p.  167,  giving  only  the  fact 
of   the   grant.     "Provisum   est   per    commune   consilium    magnatura 
Angliae"  (Madox,  I,  593,  n.  /) ;  Red  Book,  III,  1064. 

73  Matthew  Paris,  IV,  366-368,  373. 

7*  "cum  nullo  modo  ad  aliam  formam  possent  flecti."  As  the 
princess  was  yet  a  child,  the  aid  would  not  ordinarily  be  taken  at 
this  time.  Its  payment  was  a  sort  of  compromise.  The  magnates 
paid  an  aid,  but  only  one  to  which  the  king  had  a  legal  right.  For 
the  law  as  enforced  at  this  time  did  not  insist  that  the  aid  to  marry 
the  lord's  daughter  should  be  taken  at  the  time  of  the  marriage. 
In  1251,  the  earl  of  Gloucester  collected  an  aid  to  marry  his  daughter 
although  she  was  not  yet  betrothed:  "Ricardus  de  Clare  comes 
Gloucestriae  exegit  a  suis  auxilium  ad  filiam  suam  maritandam,  quam 
necdum  scivit  cui"  (Theok.,  p.  146). 

75  See  above,  pp.  211,  233. 

242 


UNDER  JOHN  AND  HENRY  III 

should  pay  the  aid  on  the  number  of  fees  for  which  they 
customarily  responded,76  not  on  the  total  number  of  fees 
on  their  lands.77  No  special  officials  were  appointed  to 
collect  the  tax.  The  levy  fell  ultimately  on  the  rear- 
vassals.78  Distraint  was  employed  to  enforce  payment.79 
The  greater  part  of  the  aid  was  entered  in  the  Pipe  Roll 
of  1245.  The  total  amount  charged  was  £6,001  15s  Od, 
of  which  sum  £2,480  9s  4d  were  paid  in  1245-1 247.80  An 

76  That  is,  on  the  servitium  debitum  or  the  old  enfeoffment,  as 
the  case  might  be. 

77  The  fact  that  the  barons  stipulated  that  the  king  should  not  try 
to  collect  the  aid  on  all  land  held  by  military  service  is  suggested  by 
a  writ  on  the  Memoranda  Roll  which  states  that  the  magnates  pro- 
vided that  the  aid  was  to  be  paid  on  all  the  fees  which  they  held  of 
the  king  in  chief  and  from  which  they  owed  military  service:  "Quia 
provisum  est  per  commune  consilium  magnatum  Angliae,  quod  ipsi 
reddant  regi  de  singulis  feodis  militum  quae  de  rege  tenent  in  capite 
et   de   quibus   debent   servicium   militare,   xx   sol.    ad   primogenitam 
filiam  regis  maritandam"  (Madox,  I,  593,  n.  /).     That  this  descrip- 
tion was  restrictive  as  stated  above  is  shown  by  the  fact  that  in  the 
account  of  the  aid  in  the  Pipe  Roll,  tenants  paid  on  the  number  of 
fees  for  which  they  had  long  been  accustomed  to  account.    The  new 
enfeoffment  was  not  paid  for  unless  the  servitium  debitum  exceeded 
the   total   enfeoffment   or   unless   the   honor   was   in   hand,   e.g.    the 
bishopric  of  Chichester   (Pipe  Roll,  29  Henry  III,  Sussex).     How- 
ever the  extra  enfeoffments  might  be  entered  in  the  roll.     If  one 
examines  the  writs  of  collection  of  1235  and  1242   (Close  Rolls,  III, 
186,  189;  IV,  486),  it  will  be  found  that  the  clause  restricting  pay- 
ment to  those  fees  from  which  the  barons  owe  military  service  is  not 
introduced  in  those  years. 

78  Orders   to   the   custodians   of   the   bishopric   of   Chester   and   of 
William  de  Percy  and  the  earl  of  Devon  to  collect  the  aid  from  the 
rear-vassals;  pardon  of  the  aid  to  one  of  the  tenants  of  the  earl  of 
Oxford  (Rot.  Orig.,  I,  8b,  9a;  Madox,  I,  593,  n.  /). 

79  Madox,  I,  672,  n.  k. 

so  The  account  is  as  follows : 

£  s  d 

Clerical  tenants 708  2  0 

One  hundred  and  seventy-one  lay  tenants   (each  5  or 

more  fees) 4763  8  9 

Other  lay  tenants  (each  fewer  than  5  fees,  etc.)  .         .  530  4  3 

Total              6001  15  0 

Paid,  1245,  1246 2480  9  4 

243 


STUDIES  IN  TAXATION 

aid  was  also  taken  from  the  abbots  and  priors  who  did  not 
hold  by  military  service,  and  was  collected  in  each  county 
by  the  sheriff  and  a  clerk  of  the  king.81  It  amounted  in 
twenty-three  counties  to  £580  13s  4d.82 

THE  SCUTAGE  OF  GANNOC,  1246 

In  the  fall  and  winter  of  1244-1245,  the  Welsh  invaded 
English  territory.  A  force  of  mercenaries  was  sent 
against  them  without  success.83  The  king  celebrated  the 
feast  of  Pentecost  (June  4,  1245)  at  Westminster  with 
the  magnates  and  it  was  then  determined  to  summon  the 
host  for  an  invasion  of  Wales.  The  campaign  was  carried 
on  under  the  personal  direction  of  Henry  III  from  August 
29  till  October  28,  about  two  months.84  The  army  was 
composed  of  tenants,  both  great  and  small,  either  per- 
forming their  service,  or  providing  their  due  contingents 
of  knights.  A  tenant  however  did  not  have  to  furnish 

The  number  of  great  lay  tenants,  171,  includes  7  tenants  on  the 
honor  of  Boulogne,  4  on  Lancaster,  and  1  on  Peverel.  Of  the  sum 
charged  against  the  lesser  lay  tenants,  £157  were  charged  against 
tenants  on  the  honors  of  Boulogne,  Lancaster,  and  Peverel.  This 
roll  therefore  gives  a  total  of  about  6,000  fees  in  the  kingdom.  Mr. 
Round  has  made  the  total  number  of  clerical  fees  in  England  784;  if 
we  add  76  fees  of  the  clergy  which  have  been  omitted  this  year, 
and  220  fees  of  the  county  of  Cornwall,  about  100  fees  of  the  honor 
of  Wallingford,  and  127  fees  of  the  honor  of  Brittany,  we  get  over 
6,500  fees.  If  we  make  some  deduction  for  scattered  fees  of  great 
baronies  which  have  been  entered  twice,  we  still  get  a  total  of  prob- 
ably 6,500  fees. 

siCaf.  Pat.  Rolls,  I,  463;  Dunst.,  p.  167;  Wig.,  p.  436;  Madox,  I, 
595,  n.  q;  596,  n.  r,  s;  Pipe  Roll,  29  Henry  III,  passim. 

82  Pipe  Roll,  29  Henry  III. 

83  Matthew  Paris,  IV,  385,  386   ("trecentis  commilitonibus  stipen- 
diariis"),  407,  409. 

84  Ibid.,  p.  423;  a  sort  of  preparatory  summons  was  sent  out  on 
June  7,  to  be  followed  by  a  later  one  fixing  the  date  for  the  host  to 
assemble   (Close  Rolls,  No.  58,  m.  8  d).     The  king  was  at  Chester 
August  17,  in  Wales,  August  29,  where  he  remained  till  October  29 
(Gal.  Pat.  Rolls,  I,  459-465;  Matthew  Paris,  IV,  481,  486,  487);  Ann. 
Cambr.,  p.  85;  Brut.,  p.  331;  Dunst.,  p.  168. 

244 


UNDER  JOHN  AND  HENRY  III 

his  full  quota  of  men.85  This  had  been  a  customary 
practice  for  a  long  time.  But  already  a  further  step  was 
being  taken ;  this  incomplete  service  was  now  coming  to  be 
regarded  as  all  that  could  legally  be  demanded  from  the 
holding.  There  is  a  roll  of  the  service  which  tenants  had 
performed  in  Wales  in  1245.  It  states  the  number  of 
knights  or  sergeants  furnished  by  each  tenant  and  in 
addition  the  number  which  he  recognized  that  he  owed. 

85  The  Scutage  Roll  sometimes  states  how  many  knights  or  sergeants 
were  provided  by  the  tenant.  From  the  examples  given  below  it 
will  be  seen  that  lesser  tenants  were  compelled  to  give  service  and 
that  for  the  greater  tenants  probably  only  service  in  part  was  the 
rule.  The  number  of  fees  assigned  to  each  tenant  is  taken  from  the 
Pipe  Rolls  of  1245  and  1246. 

Knights 

fur-  Fees 

nished  held 

Hugo  Fitz  Ralph        ...     1  3 

Ralph  de  Gaugy        ...     1  3 

Roger   Bertram  ...     1  5 

Nicholas  de  Bassingburn  .         .     1  serg.  1 

Ralph  de  Cameys      .         .         .1  1^ 

Ralph  de  Haya         .         .         .1  serg.  1 

Henry  de  Merk          .         .         .2  serg.  3 

Roger  de  Albemarle  .         .     1  serg.  1 

Roger   Fitz   Ralph     ...     1  1 

William  de  Hastings          .         .     1  1^ 

Roger  de  Muschamps  .     2  4 

Joanna  de  Neville  .  .  .1  8% 
Ralph  Ridel  ....  1  serg.  % 
John  de  Pabeham  .  .  .1  serg.  14 

Richard    Luvel  ...     1  18 

(Saher)   de  Wahull   ...     2  30 

(Scutage  Rolls,  no.  7).  The  entry  in  each  case  is  "qui  habuit  x 
milites"  etc.  I  am  not  certain  that  I  have  the  whole  number  of  fees 
held  by  each  man,  but  each  held  at  least  as  many  as  are  given  above. 
Mercenaries  were  also  employed;  3,000  footmen  came  from  Ireland 
who  received  2d  a  day  (Cal.  Pat.  Rolls,  I,  458,  461).  Service  in  the 
army  was  not  limited  to  40  days:  "Quia  Stephanus  Lungesp'  est  in 
expedicione  exercitus  Walliae  et  quamdiu  ibidem  erit  ignoratur"  etc. 
(Close  Rolls,  no.  58,  m.  4  d).  If  the  rear-vassal  refused  to  obey  the 
summons  of  his  lord,  the  sheriff  distrained  him;  the  vassals  of  the 
abbot  of  Abingdon  were  thus  distrained  (ibid.,  m.  3,  5). 

245 


STUDIES  IN  TAXATION 

In  the  case  of  the  greater  tenants,  both  the  service  done 
and  the  service  recognized  were  sometimes  smaller  than 
the  old  servitium  debitum.  Sometimes  the  old  service  was 
recognized,  though  it  was  not  performed.  Sometimes  a 
tenant  performed  de  gratia  more  than  he  recognized.86 

Immediately  after  the  resolution  to  make  war  had  been 
taken,  the  king  set  about  providing  the  money.  During 
the  month  of  June,  the  Italian  merchants  in  England  were 
summoned  to  appear  at  Westminster  at  the  end  of  the 
month  to  grant  either  an  aid  or  a  loan  of  6,000  marks 
or  less.  Failing  a  satisfactory  reply,  they  were  to  be 
expelled  the  kingdom.87  The  Jews  owed  the  treasury 
4,000  marks,  due  on  September  29.  After  the  campaign 
began,  the  king  ordered  that  if  they  failed  to  pay,  some  of 
the  wealthiest  should  be  seized  and  sent  to  him  in  Wales, 
whence  he  would  send  them  to  Ireland  to  be  kept  in 
prison.88  Money  was  borrowed  from  the  earl  of  Corn- 
wall.89 All  this  shows  the  poverty  of  the  exchequer. 

For  this  campaign,  a  scutage  at  three  marks  per  fee 
was  taken,  levied  while  the  host  was  in  Wales.90  It 
appears  in  the  Pipe  Roll  of  1246.  This  was  not  an  aid, 
but  was  paid  by  those  who  had  not  performed  their  ser- 
vice. Some  tenants  seem  to  have  fined  in  addition  to 
paying  scutage.91  Tenants  who  served  were  allowed  to 
collect  scutage  from  their  men,  even  when  service  in  part 
only  was  performed.92  Distraint  was  used  to  compel  rear- 
vassals  to  pay  scutage  to  their  lords  and  to  enforce  the 
payment  of  the  tax  at  the  exchequer.  The  collection 
might  be  long  delayed.93  The  total  amount  charged  was 
£3,903  5s  8d,  of  which  £756  16s  lid  was  paid  in  1246 
and  1247.94 

se  "Servicium  factum  domino  H.  regi  Angliae  in  Wallia  anno  regni 
sui  vicesimo  nono."  The  entries  which  contain  notices  of  the  service 
which  the  tenants  recognized  run  as  follows:  "Johannes  de  Curteney 
se  tercio — non  plus  recognovit";  "Robertus  de  S.  Johanne  se  quinto 

246 


UNDER  JOHN  AND  HENRY  III 

militum — recognovit  servicium  trium  militum  et  residuum  facit  de 
gratia."     The  following  are  some  cases: 


Bishop  of  Bath     . 

Philip  de  Columbiers      .         . 

Abbess  of  St.  Edwards  . 

Robert  de  Novo  Burgo  . 
Albreda  des  Boterels     . 

Bishop  of  Salisbury 

Abbot  of  Abingdon        .         . 
Saher  de  Wahull    . 

Abbot  of  Peterborough  . 

Ralph  Basset          .         .         . 
William  Fitz  Hamon 
Earl  of  Winchester 

John  de  Curteney  (Okehampton) 
Robert  de  St.  John 

Hugh  Fitz  Ralph   .          ... 
Joanna  de  Nevill  .         .         . 
Godfrey  de  Alno   . 
Robert   Belet 
Walter  de  Pavilly  . 
Henry  Hose  .... 
William  Maudut    . 
Roger  de  St.  John 
William  de  Hampton 
Nicholas  de  Bassingburn 
Gilbert  de  Bolebec 
Peter  de  Sabaudia  (Honor  Rich- 
mond)         .... 


Old 

Knights        Service 

servi- 

fur-              recog- 

cium 

nished           nized 

20 

2                  2 

j  1  knight 

10 

j  2  serg.        2 

j  3  knights 

7 

]  8  serg. 

15 

2                12 

8 

2  serg.        1 

32 

j  2  knights 
(  6  serg.        5 

30 

4                30 

30 

2                 2 

60 

j  1  knight 
(  8  serg.      60 

15 

2                15 

15 

2                15 

60 

10                  3% 

"et  residuum 

de  gratia." 

92 

3                  3 

55 

5                 3    "et    residuum 

facit  de  gratia." 

3 

1                  3 

8 

2  serg.        1 

1 

2  serg.        1 

1 

2  serg.        1 

1 

2  serg.        1 

2 

1                  1 

1 

2                  1 

1 

1                  1 

1 

1  serg.          % 

1 

1  serg.        1 

1 

1                  1 

140         13 


5    "et    residuum 
facit  de  gratia." 
(Chancery,  Miscellanea,  bundle  5,  no.  1.) 

The  old  service  in  the  case  of  most  of  the  greater  tenants  has  been 
taken  from  the  reign  of  Henry  II,  but  in  the  case  of  the  smaller 
tenants,  I  have  given  the  number  of  fees  for  which  they  account  in 
the  Pipe  Roll  of  the  scutage  of  Gannoc,  1246. 

The  legal  reduction  of  the  old  service  at  this  time  is  also  illus- 
trated by  the  grant  of  the  honor  of  Richmond.     That  honor  con- 


247 


STUDIES  IN  TAXATION 

tained  140  fees.  In  1241,  it  was  granted  to  Peter  de  Sabaudia  (Cal. 
Pat.  Rolls,  I,  251);  the  service  which  he  was  to  perform  for  it  was 
that  of  only  five  knights:  "ex  concessione  vestra  (i.e.  regis)  hactenus 
tenui  honorem  Richemundiae  a  vobis  pro  servitio  quinque  militum" 
(Shirley,  II,  210).  See  also  above,  p.  221,  note  208. 

87  Close  Rolls,  no.  58,  m.  7,  8. 

ss  Ibid.,  m.  2. 

892,000m  (ibid.,  m.  2);  of  this  sum,  1,750m  were  a  loan  and  250m 
were  the  earl's  fee  (Cal.  Pat.  Rolls,  I,  456,  459)  ;  3,000m  "sub  pignore 
jocalium  regis"  (Matthew  Paris,  IV,  487);  probably  this  is  the  same 
loan  as  that  mentioned  in  the  Patent  Roll,  as  both  are  secured  in  the 
same  way.  See  Cal.  Pat.  Rolls,  I,  458,  for  another  loan;  £397  10s  6d 
of  the  treasure  of  Ireland  were  paid  at  Gannoc  (ibid.,  361) ;  Septem- 
ber 14,  the  king  asked  the  officials  of  the  exchequer  to  forward  him 
3,000m  at  once,  or  at  least  2,000m  (Close  Rolls,  no.  58,  m.  2). 

so  "Scutagium  exercitus  domini  regis  de  Gannok  concessum  apud 
Gannok"  (Scutage  Rolls,  no.  7,  m.  1). 

91  The  bishop  of  Winchester  was  charged  with  scutage  and  also 
with  a  fine  of  100m  (Pipe  Roll,  30  Henry  III,  Hants,  m.  12  d). 

92  Scutage  Rolls,  no.  7.    The  men  who  furnished  only  part  of  their 
nominal  service  were  granted  all  their  scutage  in  the  Scutage  Roll. 

93Madox,  I,  678,  n.  g,  40  Henry  III;  n.  /,  38  Henry  III;  distraint 
of  the  tenants  of  Nigel  de  Amundevill'  (Exch.  K.  R.  Mem.  Roll,  38 
Henry  III,  m.  11);  distraint  on  the  lands  of  Ralph  Musard  to  pay 
scutage  to  the  exchequer  (ibid.,  m.  25  d) ;  distraint  of  tenants  of 
Roger  de  Luvetot  to  pay  him  his  scutage  (Exch.  L.  T.  R.  Mem.  Roll, 
39  Henry  III,  m.  10)  which  he  owed  at  the  exchequer  (Pipe  Roll, 
32  Henry  III,  Cant,  and  Hunt.).  When  the  orders  to  collect  the 
scutage  were  originally  issued,  the  sheriff  was  to  take  nothing  from 
the  lands  of  those  who  had  writs  of  scutage:  "Quia  alias  mandatum 
est  vicecomiti  quod  de  singulis  feodis  militum  que  de  rege  tenentur 
in  capite  in  comitatu  suo  levaret  xl  sol.  de  scutagio  de  Gannok 
praeterquam  de  feodis  illorum  qui  ei  detulerunt  brevia  regis  de 
scutagio  suo  habendo"  (Exch.  K.  R.  Mem.  Roll,  36  Henry  III,  m. 
17  d).  Thus  there  was  not  a  general  collection  from  the  rear- 
vassals. 

»4  The  account  follows : 

£        s      d 

Clerical  tenants 380  0  0 

Fifty-nine  lay  tenants   (each  5  or  more  fees)    .          .  2909  3  10 

Other  lay  tenants  (each  fewer  than  5  fees,  etc.)       .  614  1  10 

Total 3903  5  8 

Paid,  1246,  1247 756  16  11 

Fees  taxed,  less  than  2,000. 

Of  the  sum  charged  against  lay  tenants,  each  fewer  than  5  fees,  etc., 

248 


UNDER  JOHN  AND  HENRY  III 

In  1245,  a  tallage  was  assessed  on  the  royal  demesne. 
Towns  and  cities  fined  for  it.  The  levy  was  made  by  the 
sheriffs  and  other  royal  officials,  assigned  to  this  work.95 
An  incomplete  account  ( twenty- three  counties)  gives 
6,646  marks  charged.96  In  1247,  the  king  received  a  loan 
of  10,000  marks  from  the  earl  of  Cornwall.97  In  July, 
1248,  after  the  great  council  had  refused  him  an  aid, 
Henry  III  sold  his  plate  and  jewels  to  the  Londoners  to 
raise  money.98  At  the  close  of  this  year  and  in  1249,  as 
he  was  still  unable  to  get  a  grant  from  the  council,  he 
asked  contributions  from  individual  barons  and  clergy, 
claiming  that  he  owed  30,000  marks.99  He  obtained  some 
from  religious  houses.  St.  Albans  paid  sixty  marks  and 
promised  sixty  marks  more  in  1250;  Dunstable  paid  ten 
marks ;  the  priory  of  Worcester,  fifteen  marks.100  Simon 
Passelew  was  sent  into  Essex  and  Hertfordshire  with 
orders  to  cooperate  with  the  sheriff  to  collect  an  aid  from 
religious  houses.101  A  tallage  was  levied,  amounting  in 

£205  were  charged  on  tenants  on  the  honors  of  Boulogne,  Lancaster, 
and  Peverel,  leaving  about  £400  on  tenants  in  chief,  or  200  fees. 

95  In  Northumberland,  it  was  assessed  by  the  sheriffs  of  Northum- 
berland and  Cumberland  (Cal.  Pat.  Rolls,  I,  502)  ;  in  Chester,  by  the 
justice  of  Chester  and  Henry  de  Wengham,  a  royal  justice  (ibid., 
467) ;  in  Yorkshire,  by  Richard  de  Tatesden  and  John  Gumbaud,  a 
royal  justice  (Pipe  Roll,  30  Henry  III,  York;  Close  Rolls,  IV,  345). 

9«  This  includes  London,  2,000m.  These  entries  are  from  the  Pipe 
Rolls  of  1245,  1246,  1247.  There  are  references  to  this  tallage  in 
Madox,  I,  707,  709,  710,  711,  735,  743,  755;  II,  116,  n.  x;  Maitland, 
Manorial  Courts,  pp.  10-14.  The  reference  in  Madox,  I,  739,  n.  c,  to  a 
tallage  on  London  per  capita  and  by  wards,  taken  from  the  roll  of 
31  Henry  III,  refers  to  the  tallage  of  1226. 

97  Cal.  Pat.  Rolls,  I,  505.     He  also  borrowed  £350  from  Florentine 
merchants  (ibid.,  II,  1);  in  January,  1246,  he  was  loaned  1,000m  by 
Siennese   merchants   and  500m  by  the    Hospitallers    (Pells    Receipt 
Rolls,  No.  124). 

98  Matthew  Paris,  V,  20-22. 
»9  Ibid.,  pp.  50-53. 

100  ibid.,  p.  52;  Dunst.,  p.  176;  Wig.,  p.  439.    Some  houses  refused. 

101  Matthew  Paris,  V,  53;  Cal.  Pat.  Rolls,  II,  34.     In  the   Pipe 

249 


STUDIES  IN  TAXATION 

thirty  counties  to  about  6,000  marks.102  In  this  year  also, 
Henry  III  borrowed  from  Italian  merchants  to  pay  the 
pope's  tribute.103  In  1250,  the  pope  is  said  to  have 
granted  the  king  a  twenty-third  of  the  goods  of  all  the 
clergy,  but  little  was  realized  from  this  because  some  of 
the  bishops  opposed  it.104  This  year,  the  king  is  said  to 
have  reduced  the  expenses  of  his  court  and  at  Christmas 
to  have  made  none  of  the  customary  presents  to  his 
familiars.101  On  December  26,  1251,  the  marriage  was 
celebrated  between  Margaret,  Henry  Ill's  daughter,  and 
the  king  of  Scotland;  the  English  king  promised  to  pay 
5,000  marks  as  a  dowry  within  the  next  four  years.106 
To  raise  this  sum,  a  tallage  was  levied.  Towns  fined  for 

Roll  of  1249,  there  are  given  in  11  counties,  78  houses  which  con- 
tributed 370  marks;  "et  de  C  et  xlvi  li.  xiiis  iiiid  de  abbate  de 
Cogeshal'  et  aliis  diversis  abbatibus  de  ordine  Cyscestrens'  .  .  .  et  de 
MCC  Ixiii  m  et  dim.  de  privatis  donis  quorundam  abbatum  et 
priorum  .  .  .  et  de  M  d  c  Ixxvi  li.  xvs  iiid  de  donis  diversorum" 
(from  a  Wardrobe  Account,  29-36  Henry  III,  Pipe  Roll,  35  Henry 
III,  m.  7). 

102  Devon,    Lincoln,    Essex    and    Hertford,    and    Sussex    are    the 
missing  counties.     London  paid  £1,000.     In  the  counties  of  Notts, 
and    Derby,    Cumberland,    York,    Lancaster,    Northumberland,    and 
Worcester,  the  assessment  was  made  by  the  sheriff  and  Thomas  de 
Stanford  and  William  de  Axemuth.    In  May,  1248,  Thomas  was  the 
king's  escheator  in   all  these  counties   except  Worcestershire    (Cat. 
Pat.  Rolls,  II,  16) ;  William  is  spoken  of  as  a  king's  clerk  in  1248 
and  as  a  judge  in  1249  (ibid.,  pp.  24,  34,  51,  53).    In  Stafford,  Dorset 
and  Somerset,  Salop  and  Gloucester  the  assessment  was  made  by 
the  sheriff  and  Henry  de  Wengham,  later,  chancellor,  an  escheator 
(ibid.,  II,  11,  72) ;  in  Northampton,  by  William  de  Axemuth,  Fulk 
de  Orreby,  escheator  of  Chester  (ibid.,  40,  41),  and  J.  de  Grey,  justice 
of  Chester  (ibid.,  45) ;  in  Surrey  by  the  sheriff  and  Simon  Passelew, 
a  king's  clerk.     The  tallage  is  mentioned  in  Madox,  II,  215,  n.  y; 
Lane.  Record.  Soc.,  XLVIII,  176.    The  Jews  were  tallaged  this  year 
in  500m  of  silver  and  20m  of  gold  (Gal.  Pat.  Rolls,  II,  46;  Matthew 
Paris,  V,  114,  136). 

103  Cal.  Pat.  Rolls,  II,  41,  42. 
io*TAcofc.,  p.  139. 

105  Matthew  Paris,  V,  114,  199. 
loe  Cal.  Pat.  Rolls,  II,  121. 

250 


UNDER  JOHN  AND  HENRY  III 

it  as  usual.  The  total  amount  recorded  as  levied  is 
7,100m  10s  5d  of  silver  and  20m  of  gold.107  It  was 
assessed  by  the  sheriff  and  other  royal  officials.108 

107  The  account  is  taken  from  the  Pipe  Rolls  of  1252,  1253  and  1254. 
Only  Devon,   Sussex,   and   Cornwall   are   omitted,   so  that  we  have 
practically  a  complete  account  as  far  as  the  Pipe  Rolls  record  it. 
London  paid   1,000m  of  silver  and  20m  of  gold    (Close   Rolls,   39 
Henry  III,  m.  20  d) ;  Matthew  Paris,  V,  333,  mentions  only  the  20m 
gold. 

108  In  London,  it  was   assessed  by  John  Mansell,  "chancellor  of 
London,  .  .  .  the  king's  secretary"  (Cal.  Pat.  Rolls,  II,  230),  William 
de    Haverhull,    the    treasurer,    and    Edward    de    Westmonasterio,    a 
clerk  of  the  exchequer  (ibid.,  II,  142) ;  in  Dorset  and  Somerset,  by 
the  sheriff  and  William  de  Axemuth,  a  justice  (Pipe  Roll,  37  Henry 
III,  Dors,  and  Somers.);  in  Cant,  and  Hunt.,  by  Richard  de  Sire- 
burne  and  Richard  Rus,  clerks  of  the  exchequer   (Cal.  Pat.  Rolls, 
II,  218,  277).    Other  notices  of  this  tallage:  Theok.,  p.  145;  Cal.  Pat. 
Rolls,  II,  139;  Excerpta,  II,  126,  145;  Madox,  I,  752,  n.  g. 


251 


CHAPTER  VIII 
THE  TAXES  IN  DETAIL  FROM  1253  TO  1258 

f  I  ^  HE  taxes  in  this  period  consisted  of  an  aid  to  knight 
•*•  the  king's  son,  a  scutage,  the  tenths  on  the  clergy, 
a  tallage  and  an  aid  on  the  towns,  and  a  donum  from 
religious  houses.  The  tenants  in  chief  continued  to  refuse 
to  grant  a  gracious  aid  on  their  military  fees,  and  the 
king  did  not  try  to  collect  it  without  their  consent.  It 
is  likely  that  the  aid  to  knight  the  king's  son  was  taken 
after  the  failure  to  obtain  a  gracious  aid  from  the  great 
council  for  the  expenses  of  the  campaign  in  Gascony. 
The  two  expeditions  of  the  period  (one  to  Gascony  in 
1253  and  one  to  Wales  in  1257)  were  both  properly  occa- 
sions for  scutage.  None  was  taken  in  1253,  doubtless  on 
account  of  the  aid  of  that  year.  Both  expeditions  were 
accompanied  by  fines ;  in  both,  tenants  served  with  only 
part  of  their  contingents.  Though  the  barons  thus  had 
to  perform  service  overseas,  they  were  disposed  to  set 
limits  to  it.  They  objected  to  fighting  against  the  king 
of  Castile,  and  Henry  III  promised  that  such  service 
should  not  be  considered  a  precedent. 

The  refusal  of  gracious  aids  on  military  fees  was  one 
important  feature  of  this  period;  the  taxation  of  the 
clergy  was  the  other.  That  Henry  III  should  succeed 
in  taxing  a  class  which  apparently  had  successfully 
resisted  John  is  sufficiently  striking,  the  more  so  that  he 
did  it  at  a  time  when  the  opposition  to  his  extraordinary 
levies  had  so  greatly  increased.  The  reasons  for  the 
king's  success  lie  in  the  support  which  he  received  from 

252 


UNDER  JOHN  AND  HENRY  III 

the  pope  and  in  the  attitude  of  neutrality  adopted  by  the 
lay  tenants  in  chief.  The  historical  preparation  for  this 
taxation  is  to  be  found  not  in  the  sixteenth  of  1226  or 
in  the  dona  which  Henry  III  levied  on  religious  bodies, 
but  in  the  repeated  taxes  on  church  property  which  the 
pope  had  levied.  The  levy  of  the  tenths  caused  great 
opposition.  The  king  was  unable  to  collect  them  till  the 
clergy  had  given  their  consent.  The  method  of  assess- 
ment was  by  a  jury  which  was  composed  of  the  clergy. 
The  whole  work  of  assessment  was  in  the  hands  of  the 
clergy,  not  of  lay  officials.  Even  the  disbursement  seems 
to  have  been  controlled  by  the  papal  nominee,  Rostand. 
The  sums  received  were  spent  not  in  England,  but  in 
furthering  the  war  in  Sicily.  The  opposition  of  the 
clergy  was  so  strong  that  the  tenth  for  the  last  two  years 
was  compounded  for  in  a  lump  sum.  Finally,  it  will  be 
observed  that  the  tenths  were  much  heavier  than  the  papal 
taxes  which  had  immediately  preceded  them,  and  this 
increase  was  no  doubt  one  of  the  causes  of  complaint. 

THE  TAXATION  OF  1253 

On  October  13,  1252,  the  prelates  and  lay  tenants  in 
chief  met  by  special  summons  at  Westminster.  The  king 
proposed  to  lead  an  expedition  at  this  time  to  Gascony, 
but  it  was  postponed  on  account  of  the  opposition  of  the 
magnates.1  Henry  III  asked  the  clergy  for  the  tenth 
of  ecclesiastical  revenues  which  the  pope  had  granted  him, 
but  they  refused.  His  request  to  the  laity  to  grant  him 
an  aid  for  the  crusade  met  with  the  response  that  they 

i  Matthew  Paris,  V,  324,  334-337;  Burton,  p.  305;  B&nont,  Simon 
de  Mont  fort,  p.  278,  citing  a  writ  from  the  Close  Roll  of  August  6, 
1252,  summoning  tenants  to  Westminster  on  October  13,  ready  to 
cross  with  him;  men  of  the  coast  towns  were  to  have  ships  at  Ports- 
mouth on  October  6  ad  trans fretandum  nobiscum  in  Vasconiam, 
Close  Rolls,  No.  65,  m.  7  d;  Lords'  Report  on  the  Dignity  of  a  Peer, 
III,  App.  I,  p.  11. 

253 


STUDIES  IN  TAXATION 

would  do  nothing  without  the  clergy.  The  whole  matter 
was  finally  postponed  to  a  meeting  of  the  great  council 
which  was  to  be  held  in  the  spring  of  1253.2  On  April  27, 
1253,  the  council  met;  the  prelates  granted  the  tenth  and 
all  the  tenants  in  chief  agreed  to  pay  an  aid  of  three 
marks  on  the  fee  for  the  knighting  of  Edward,  half  to  be 
paid  at  Michaelmas,  1253,  and  half  at  Easter,  1254.  In 
return  the  great  charter  was  confirmed.3  The  prince  was 
knighted  in  1254,  but  the  aid  on  military  tenants,  though 
nominally  levied  for  this  purpose,  seems  really  to  have 
been  taken  to  defray  the  expenses  of  the  campaign  in 
Gascony.4  The  king  was  unable  however  to  obtain  the 
kind  of  grant  that  he  wished  and  had  to  resort  to  one  of 
the  regular  aids. 

After  the  meeting,  the  host  was  summoned  to  meet  at 
Portsmouth  at  the  end  of  June.5  The  departure  of  the 
fleet  was  delayed  till  August  6,  on  account  of  adverse 
winds,  according  to  Matthew  Paris,  but  there  seems  to 
have  been  some  opposition  to  the  expedition  among  the 
barons.6  Thus  the  king  expected  his  tenants  in  chief  to 

2  Matthew  Paris,  above;  Burton,  above. 

8  A  special  summons  to  the  council  was  issued :  "tota  edicto  regio 
convocata  Angliae  nobilitas"  (Matthew  Paris,  V,  373).  Those  present 
were  "cum  comitibus  et  baronibus  quamplurimis  archiepiscopus 
Cantuariensis  B.,  episcopi  Angliae  fere  omnes"  (ibid.) ;  "episcopis, 
comitibus,  baronibus,  militibus,  abbatibus,  prioribus"  (Dunst.,  p. 
186);  Matthew  Paris,  VI,  250;  Close  Rolls,  no.  66,  m.  11. 

*  "convocavit  rex  magnates  suos  pro  succursu  habendo  ad  terram 
Wasconiae    recuperandum.  .  .  .  Et    tune    petiit    auxilium"    (Dun*t., 
above). 

6  The  barons  of  the  Cinque  Ports  were  ordered  to  have  their  ships 
at  Portsmouth  on  June  22  to  transport  the  host  (Close  Rolls,  no.  66, 
m.  12  d);  Col.  Pat.  Rolls,  II,  230;  Matthew  Paris,  V,  381. 

•  Matthew  Paris,  V,  383;  Dunst.,  above;  Theok.,  p.  153;  Cal.  Pat. 
Rolls,  II,  236;  "quia  plures  tenentes  de  nobis  in  capite  .  .  .  sepius 
a  nobis  requisiti  ut  nobiscum  trans  fretarent  in  Vasconiam  .  .  .  man- 
data  nostra  contempnentes  nobis  super  hoc  respondere  .  .  .  tibi  dis- 
tricte  precipimus  .  .  .  quod  ipsos  contemptores  distringas  ad  venien- 
dum  .  .  .  coram  consilio  nostro"  (Close  Rolls,  no.  66,  m.  4  d). 

254 


UNDER  JOHN  AND  HENRY  III 

perform  service  in  Gascony  and  was  able  to  compel  them 
to  serve.7  Some  were  distrained;  some  fined  to  be  allowed 
to  remain  at  home;  some  were  excused  because  they  were 
on  the  Welsh  frontier  and  were  to  assist  in  keeping  order 
there.8  It  was  not  necessary  for  the  tenant  to  furnish  his 
whole  quota  of  knights.  Service  in  part  was  considered 
to  be  the  equivalent  of  full  service.9  In  addition  to  the 
fines  from  military  tenants,  the  king,  as  usual,  collected 
contributions  from  religious  houses,  some  of  which  did  not 
hold  by  military  service.  The  prior  of  Tewkesbury  paid 
20  marks ;  the  prior  of  Dunstable,  £10 ;  the  prior  of 
Worcester,  40  marks ;  the  abbot  of  St.  Albans,  70  marks ; 

7  Over  300  writs  of  protection  were  issued  to  men  accompanying 
the  king  (Cal  Pat.  Rolls,  II,  231,  235). 

8  William  de  Beauchamp,  45 -(-  fees,  fined  in  £100  for  his  passage 
(Close  Rolls,  No.  66,  m.  9) ;  Roger  de  Huntingfield  fined  in  60  marks, 
but  afterward  sent  one  knight  instead   (Madox,  I,  669,  n.  z)  ;  Philip 
de   Colombiers    (10    fees)    fined   in  30   marks    (Excerpta,   II,   186) ; 
Henry  de  Tracy  (56  fees)  "C  marcas  de  auxilio  contra  transfreta- 
cionem   regis   in  Vasconiam";   Ralph   de   Valtort   £10;   Matthew   de 
Luvein   (10  fees)   20  marks;  Richard  de  Munfichet   (47 -(- fees)    100 
marks;  Earl  Ferrers   (68%  fees)   200  marks    (Pipe  Roll,  38  Henry 
III,  Devon,  Essex  and  Hertford,  Notts,  and  Derby) ;  "quia  Willelmus 
Maudut  transfretaturus  est  cum  rege  in  Vasconiam  mandatum  est 
vicecomiti  Wiltes'  quod  districcionem  quam  ei  facit  pro  dicta  trans- 
fretatione  penitus  relaxet"  (Close  Rolls,  no.  66,  m.  5);  "quia  Hugo 
de  Bolebec  finem  fecit  cum  rege  pro  transfretatione  sua  cum  rege  in 
Vasconiam  mandatum  est  vicecomiti  Norhumbr'  quod  districcionem 
quam  facit  super  eum  occasione  praedictae  relaxet"   (July  16,  ibid., 
m.  8  d) ;  also  the  cases  of  William  de  Ros,  Reginald  de  Mohun,  Gilbert 
de  Gaunt  (ibid.,  m.  6,  m.  6  d,  m.  8  d) ;  Walter  de  Clifford  and  John 
de  Monmouth  were  excused  on  account  of  service  in  the  march  of 
Wales  (ibid.,  m.  6  d). 

•  The  summons  issued  August  6,  1252,  called  for  partial  service. 
Warner  de  Munchanesy  was  to  come  se  quinto;  Hugo  de  Vivoniis, 
se  altero  (Bemont,  op.  cit.,  p.  278).  They  held  respectively  14%  fees 
and  11-j-  fees  (half  of  the  fee  of  William  Malet)  (Pipe  Roll,  38 
Henry  III,  Kent,  Dors,  and  Somers.).  Philip  de  Colombiers  served 
se  quarto  (Excerpta,  II,  186);  he  held  10  fees.  William  de  Say  was 
summoned  se  tercio;  he  held  42  fees.  The  writ  of  summons  rarely 
states  with  how  many  knights  the  tenant  is  to  come. 

255 


STUDIES  IN  TAXATION 

the  prior  of  Wotton,  10  marks;  the  abbot  of  Tavistock, 
£10.  Some  of  these  sums  were  paid  before  the  king  set 
out.10  This  was  not  a  part  of  the  tenth ;  it  was  a  donum 
for  the  king's  crossing.11  A  tallage  had  recently  been 
levied  for  the  marriage  of  the  king's  daughter  and  Henry 
III  apparently  did  not  venture  to  collect  another  in  1253. 
Instead,  he  sent  out  officials  to  ask  the  tenants  on  his 
demesne  to  contribute  an  aid  to  his  crossing  and  to  pay 
it  before  June  22. 12  In  these  ways,  money  was  gathered 
in  addition  to  the  aid  granted  by  the  great  council.  Xo 
scutage  was  taken  for  the  expedition,  though  the  possi- 
bility of  such  a  levy  was  considered.13 

10  Theok.,  p.  152;  Dunst.,  p.  186;  Wig.,  p.  442;  Matthew  Paris,  VI, 
251;  Madox,  I,  268,  n.  s;  Cal.  Pat.  Rolls,  II,  236;  Pipe  Roll,  38  Henry 
III,   Devon;    Wav.,  p.   345.     The   prior   of   Tewkesbury   paid   about 
February  2;  the  abbot  of  St.  Albans  on  June  19. 

11  E.g.  "de  promisso  ad  ultimam  trans fretationem  regis"   (Madox, 
above) ;    "to    receive    from    the    said    abbots  ...  a   competent    aid" 
(Cal.  Pat.  Rolls,  above) ;  several  contributions  appear  in  the  Pipe 
Roll  from  religious  bodies  "de  auxilio  ad  transfretationem  regis  in 
Wasconiam";  as  not  all  the  payments  were  made  at  the  exchequer, 
this  list  is  probably  not  exhaustive. 

12  "To  all  the  tenants  of  the  king's  manors  in  the  counties  of  ... 
As  the  king  cannot  enter  upon  the  business,  .  .  .  without  the  aid  of 
them   and   other  his   tenants,   he   is   sending   them   his   clerk  ...  to 
explain  .  .  .  and  to  require  of  them  a  competent  aid  against  his  said 
crossing"  (Cal.  Pat.  Rolls,  II,  229)  ;  "competens  auxilium  de  gratia" 
(Close  Rolls,  no.  66,  m.  11  d) ;  Cambridge,  £20  "in  auxilium  trans- 
fretationis"    (Madox,  I,  609,  n.  g) ;   London,  500  marks  "quas   regi 
promiserunt   in   subsidium   eundi   in    Vasconiam   et   pro   quibusdam 
libertatibus"    (ibid.,  n.   h) ;  "de   auxilio   ad  passagium"    (Madox,  II, 
240,  n.  fc)  ;  the  Liber  de  Antiquis  Legibus  (p.  19)  mentions  this  pay- 
ment by  London,  but  says  it  was  for  certain  liberties,  pro  ilia  carta 
habenda;  Madox,  I,  718,  n.  o;  747,  n.  m;  Rot.  Orig.,  I,  12b;  in  the  Pipe 
Roll,  there  are  some  cases,  e.g.  "totum  hundredum  de  Middelton'  r  c 
de   C   marcis   de   auxilio   ad   transfretationem   regis   in    Vasconiam" 
(Pipe  Roll,  38  Henry  III,  Kent,  m.  12  d).    The  accounts  of  the  tal- 
lage in  the  Pipe  Roll  of  1253  belong  to  the  tallage  of  1251. 

is  William  de  Beauchamp  fined  in  £100  for  his  crossing  "et  rex 
concessit  ei  quod  si  ratione  transfretacionis  illius  scutagium  currat 
quod  idem  Willelmus  habeat  scutagium  suum  sicut  etiam  ceteri  mag- 
nates qui  cum  eo  transfretant"  (Close  Rolls,  no.  66,  m.  9). 

256 


UNDER  JOHN  AND  HENRY  III 

The  aid  to  knight  the  king's  son  was  an  aid  in  the 
technical  sense.14  Though  taken  at  the  time  of  the  expe- 
dition to  Gascony,  it  was  not  paid  in  lieu  of  military  ser- 
vice. The  earl  of  Warwick  took  part  in  the  campaign, 
yet  he  was  liable  for  the  aid  on  all  his  lands.15  The  earl 
Warenne  paid  the  aid  and  accompanied  the  king.16  Both 
clerical  and  lay  tenants  shifted  the  tax  to  their  vassals.17 

i*  This  the  account: 

£  s  d 

Clerical  tenants 1,263  12  0 

One  hundred  and  sixty  lay  tenants  (each  5  or  more  fees)     9,570  19  6 

Other  lay  tenants  (each  fewer  than  5  fees,  etc.)       .         1,077  12  5 

Total 11,912  ,3  11 

Paid,  1254  and  1255 5,794  17  6 

Ten  of  the  160  greater  lay  tenants  are  on  honors  in  hand.  Of  the 
sum  charged  against  tenants  holding  fewer  than  five  fees  each,  etc., 
£317  were  against  fees  on  honors  in  hand,  leaving  not  over  £760  on 
tenants  in  chief.  The  total  number  of  fees  charged  with  the  aid  in 
the  roll  is  5,956.  The  following  number  of  fees  was  omitted:  clerical 
fees,  about  150;  the  county  of  Cornwall,  220  fees;  the  honor  of  Wal- 
lingford,  100  fees;  and  113  fees  of  the  honor  of  Brittany  (that  honor 
had  140  fees).  This  gives  a  total  number  of  fees  which  accounted  at 
the  exchequer  of  6,537. 

is  He  had  a  writ  of  protection  for  accompanying  the  king  (Cal. 
Pat.  Rolls,  II,  232) ;  "as  he  ought  shortly  to  pay  for  all  his  fees  the 
aid  due  for  making  the  king's  first-born  son  a  knight"  (ibid.,  II,  393) ; 
Madox,  I,  617,  n.  /;  683,  n.  w. 

laDugdale,  The  Baronage  of  England,  I,  77b;  Philip  de  Arcy 
accompanied  the  king  (Cal.  Pat.  Rolls,  II,  231),  probably  in  place 
of  his  father  Norman  who  had  been  given  into  his  care  (ibid.,  II, 
264),  yet  the  fee  of  his  father  paid  the  aid  (Pipe  Roll,  38  Henry  III, 
Line.);  cf.  Roger  de  Sumery  (Cal.  Pat.  Rolls,  II,  233  and  Excerpta, 
II,  187);  William  Bardolf  (Dugdale,  I,  681);  Philip  Marmiun  (Cal. 
Pat.  Rolls,  II,  232;  Madox,  I,  597,  n.  y,  and  Michel,  Roles  gascons, 
I,  307,  no.  2361).  Those  men  who  fined  to  escape  service  paid  both 
the  fine  and  the  aid:  William  de  Beauchamp  fined  in  £100  and  paid 
his  aid  (Close  Rolls,  no.  66,  m.  9;  Pipe  Roll,  38  Henry  III,  m.  4  d)  ; 
Henry  de  Tracy  fined  in  100  marks  and  paid  the  aid  (Pipe  Roll,  38 
Henry  III,  m.  5  d). 

17  For  the  prelates  (Matthew  Paris,  VI,  250;  Madox,  I,  598,  n.  d; 
Red  Book,  III,  842).  No  general  order  to  this  effect  has  been  found 
for  lay  tenants,  but  the  following  cases  show  that  such  was  probably 

257 


STUDIES  IN  TAXATION 

The  arrangements  for  the  collection  of  the  aid  are  worth 
notice.  As  this  was  an  aid  to  knight  the  king's  son,  the 
tenants  in  chief  could  not  legally  refuse  either  to  grant 
or  to  pay  it.  But  if  they  had  to  pay  the  tax,  they  pro- 
posed that  the  king  should  collect  it  strictly  according 
to  the  law.  The  sheriff  could  distrain  for  payment,  but 
his  distraint  was  to  be  done  legally.18  He  was  not  to  enter 
a  holding  and  distrain  the  rear-vassals  without  the  con- 
sent of  the  tenant  in  chief.  Thus  clerical  tenants  had 
arranged  with  the  king  to  take  the  aid  from  their  vassals 
who  were  to  be  distrained  by  the  sheriff  to  pay  it,  not  to 
the  exchequer,  but  to  the  prelates  who  would  respond.19 
In  accordance  with  the  provisions  of  the  royal  writ,  the 
sheriff  was  further  to  distrain  only  the  immediate  tenant 
of  the  prelate.20  When  he  distrained  the  lay  barons  to 
pay  the  aid,  he  was  to  distrain  the  demesne,  not  the 
knights  enfeoffed  on  their  lands.21  All  these  regulations 

issued:  order  to  the  sheriff  of  Devon  not  to  distrain  the  demesne  of 
the  countess  of  Devon  for  the  aid  "et  distringat  omnes  tenentes  per 
servicium  militare  tarn  de  eadem  comitissa  quam  eodem  B.  (de 
Insula,  part  of  whose  lands  she  held  at  farm)  ad  reddendum  regi 
praedictum  auxilium"  (Exch.,  K.  R.  Mem.  Roll,  38  Henry  III,  m. 
12  d) ;  to  the  sheriff  of  Salop  "quod  distringat  tarn  tenentes  de  feodo 
Roberti  de  Stafford'  quam  ipsum  R.  per  dominicum  suum  ad  red- 
dendum regi  auxilium,  etc."  (ibid.,  m.  23  d) ;  "Quia  Johannes  de 
Pleissis  comes  War'  non  potest  habere  auxilium  ad  primogenitum 
etc.  de  tenementis  suis  de  praedicto  comitatu  eo  quod  ilium  comitatum 
non  tenet  hereditarie,  mandatum  est  vicecomiti  quod  de  demanda 
quam  facit  praedicto  comiti  de  praedicto  auxilio  pro  praedictis  tene- 
mentis pacem  etc.  et  distringat  praedictos  tenentes  ad  reddendum  regi 
praedictum  auxilium"  (Madox,  I,  683,  n.  w). 

is  "Willelmus  de  Michedeure,  vicecomes  Surr'  et  Sussex',  venit 
coram  baronibus  et  recognoscit  quod  ceperat  averia  plurimum  mag- 
natum  in  comitatibus  suis  pro  auxilio  ad  primogenitum  etc.  et  ea 
tenuerat  per  tres  septimanas  et  amplius  et  quia  hoc  est  contra 
assisam  regni  consideratum  est  quod  praedictus  vicecomes  est  in 
misericordia"  (Mem.  Roll,  above,  m.  17  d). 

19  See  above,  note  17. 

20  Madox,  I,  597,  n.  z;  598,  n.  c,  d. 

21  "Monstravit  regi  Radulfus  Dayrel'  quod  cum  ipse  nichil  teneat 


UNDER  JOHN  AND  HENRY  III 

do  not  mean  that  the  different  grades  of  rear- vassals 
escaped  paying  the  aid ;  they  were  designed  to  prevent  the 
entrance  of  the  sheriff  on  the  tenants'  lands  without  their 
knowledge  or  consent,  and  were  a  protest  against  the 
increasing  activity  of  the  royal  administration.  The 

de  rege  in  capite  in  comitatu  Buk'  vicecomes  injuste  distringit  ipsum 
ad  reddendum  regi  xl  sol.  de  auxilio  ad  primogenitum  filium  etc.  de 
feodo  unius  militis  .  .  .  de  H.  de  Ver  comite  Oxoniae  ut  dicit  et  ideo 
mandatum  est  vicecomiti  quod  si  ita  est  tune  de  demanda  quam  facit 
ei  de  praedicto  auxilio  pacem  etc.  et  distringat  praedictum  comitem  ad 
reddendum  regi  praedictum  auxilium"  (Exch.,  K.  R.  Mem.  Roll,  38 
Henry  III,  m.  13) ;  see  also  the  cases  of  the  earl  of  Gloucester  and 
David  de  Flutewik  (ibid.,  m.  15,  15  d)  ;  Madox,  I,  597,  n.  a,  b. 

The  following  entry  is  difficult  to  explain  satisfactorily:  "Mon- 
stravit  regi  Galfridus  le  Chamberleing'  quod  cum  magnates  Angliae 
concesserint  regi  auxilium  ad  primogenitum  etc.  de  dominicis  feodis 
suis  et  non  de  feodis  que  de  eis  tenentur,  vicecomes  injuste  dis- 
tringit ipsum  ad  reddendum  regi  praedictum  auxilium  desicut  ipse 
nichil  tenet  de  rege  in  capite  set  de  Avic'  de  Ferlinton'  ut  dicit,  et 
ideo  mandatum  est  vicecomiti  quod  si  ita  est  tune  de  demanda  quam 
facit  praedicto  Galfrido  pacem  etc.  et  distringat  praedictam  Aviciam 
etc."  (Mem.  Roll,  above,  m.  17  d).  This  statement  that  the  magnates 
granted  the  aid  on  their  demesne  fees  and  not  on  the  fees  held  of  them 
cannot  mean  that  the  tenant  in  chief  paid  the  aid  on  the  fees  which  he 
held  in  dominico  only,  for  in  the  Pipe  Roll  each  tenant  accounts  for 
the  usual  number  of  fees.  It  cannot  mean  that  the  baron  paid  the  aid 
due  on  all  the  fees  of  his  barony  out  of  his  demesne  alone,  while  his 
vassals  escaped.  It  is  difficult  to  see  why  the  barons  should  make 
such  a  grant;  the  permits  to  the  clergy  to  collect  from  their  tenants 
and  the  cases  of  lay  tenants  cited  in  note  17  show  that  the  rear-vassals 
paid  the  aid.  What  this  statement  must  refer  to  is  the  way  in  which 
distraint  is  to  be  applied  to  enforce  the  payment  of  the  aid.  "In 
collecting  the  aid,  the  king  is  not  to  pass  over  the  heads  of  the  barons 
and  deal  directly  with  the  rear-vassals.  For  the  complaint  in  all 
the  cases  given  in  this  note  is  not  merely  that  the  sheriff  has  dis- 
trained the  rear-vassal,  but  that  he  has  distrained  him  to  pay  the 
aid  to  the  exchequer.  It  is  true  that  in  cases  the  sheriff  does  this  and 
no  complaint  seems  to  be  raised  (note  17),  but  in  each  of  these  cases 
either  some  agreement  has  been  made  between  the  king  and  the  tenant 
in  chief,  or  there  is  some  reason  why  the  tenant  cannot  collect  from 
his  vassals.  Evidently  this  has  not  been  done  here  and  hence  the 
sheriff  has  done  wrong  to  distrain  the  sub-tenant.  It  is  possible  that 
when  the  magnates  granted  the  aid,  they  stipulated  that  Henry  III 
was  not  to  deal  with  the  sub-tenant  without  further  warrant.  At 

259 


STUDIES  IN  TAXATION 

king's  letter  to  the  barons  of  the  exchequer  states  that 
fees  both  of  the  new  and  the  old  enfeoffment  were  to  be 
taxed.22  This  means  that  each  tenant  paid  on  the  number 
of  fees  for  which  he  ordinarily  responded  at  the  exche- 
quer.23 Tenants  by  military  service  in  Ireland  were  also 
asked  to  make  an  aid  or  serve  and  the  clergy  and  the 
towns  were  to  contribute  money.24 

Matthew  Paris  says  that  the  expenses  of  the  campaign 
were  £2,700,000  and  that  when  the  king  returned,  he  owed 
300,000  marks.25  These  figures  are  too  high.  The  expe- 
dition, however,  made  a  heavy  extra  demand  on  the 
exchequer  which  it  was  impossible  to  satisfy  without 
loans.26  The  expenses  of  the  king  in  Gascony  amounted 
to  at  least  45,000  marks.27 

At  the  end  of  December,  1253,  letters  were  received  by 
the  regents  from  Henry  III  which  stated  that  he  was 

any  rate,  the  king  is  held  to  this  regulation.  Another  example  of 
the  way  in  which  the  government  is  held  to  the  letter  of  the  law  is 
that  the  sheriff  is  permitted  to  distrain  only  the  immediate  tenants 
of  the  clergy  to  pay  them  the  aid  (Matthew  Paris,  VI,  250  and 
above,  note  20). 

22  Vincent,  p.  87;  Close  Rolls,  no.  66,  m.  11. 

23  The  expression  is  no  longer  anything  but  a  form. 

24  Cal.  Pat.  Rolls,  II,  229,  316;  Close  Rolls,  no.  66,  m.  12  d. 

25  Matthew  Paris,  V,  450,  484,  488. 

26  See  the  king's  letter  of  August  31,  1254,  requesting  a  loan  from 
his  brother,  "as  the  king  is  so  much  in  debt  that  he  cannot  leave 
Gascony  before"  October  13  (Cal.  Pat.  Rolls,  II,  326). 

27  The  following  sums  were  received  from  the  treasury: 

£  s  d 

July,  1253,  treasure  of  Ireland       ....         2,499  5  3 

(  2,085  16  10 

July,  1254,  treasure  from  England          .         .         •     )  $  «52  3  4 

August,  1254,  treasure  from  Ireland       .         .         .  1,533  6  8 

August,  1254,  treasure  from  England     .         .         .  3,114  0  0 

December,  1254,  treasure  from  England  .         .         .  2,666  13  4 

Total 14,751  5  5 

These  sums  are  taken  from  the  Cal.  Pat.  Rolls,  II,  216,  314,  317, 
320,  386. 

The  following  sums  were  borrowed  and  were  to  be  repaid  in  Eng- 

260 


UNDER  JOHN  AND  HENRY  HI 

threatened  by  an  attack  from  the  king  of  Castile.  Aid 
was  asked  from  England.  The  great  council  was  sum- 
moned and  met  on  January  27  at  Westminster.28  After 
considering  the  king's  situation,  the  great  barons  and 
some  of  the  prelates  promised  to  go  in  person  to  the  king's 
aid  after  Easter,  if  there  was  really  danger  from  the 
Spanish  king.  The  rest  of  the  prelates  agreed  to  con- 
tribute money  at  that  time.  The  lesser  lay  tenants  were 
not  present  and  the  great  lay  lords  declined  to  make  an 
answer  for  them.  The  regents  therefore  summoned  two 
representatives  from  each  county  to  meet  at  Westminster 
after  Easter  and  report  what  contribution  the  lesser 
tenants  of  each  county  would  make  to  the  king.  The 

land,  after  the  king's  return.  Of  this  money  part,  at  least,  was  for 
use  in  Gascony. 

£  s  d 

July,  1253,  from  the  earl  of  Cornwall  .  .  .  4,000  0  0 
February,  1254,  from  the  same  ....  2,666  13  4 
September,  1254,  from  citizens  of  Agen  .  .  .  1,440  8  4 
March,  1255,  bond  to  Luccan  merchants  .  .  .  1,497  18  7 
March,  1255,  bond  to  Luccan  merchants  .  .  .  1,411  4  0 
March,  1255,  payment  of  loan  by  merchants  of  Toulouse  760  0  0 
December,  1254,  residue  of  debt  of  king  to  the  arch- 
bishop of  Bordeaux 733  6  8 

September,  1254,  bond  to  merchants  of  Bordeaux     .  3,333  6  8 

Total 15,842  17  7 

These  sums  are  taken  from  the  Gal.  Pat.  Rolls,  II,  236,  300,  315, 
328,  335,  340,  341,  353,  359,  364,  386,  404,  405,  528,  555. 

The  total  received  from  the  exchequer  and  borrowed  is  £30,594  3s 
(45,891m  3s).  This  is  an  incomplete  account.  No  money  is  reported 
as  received  from  the  English  treasury  till  July,  1254.  The 
loans  recorded  in  the  Patent  Roll  amount  to  much  more  than  the 
sum  given  above,  but  part  of  them  were  paid  by  money  received 
from  home  and  by  other  loans,  how  much  it  is  impossible  to  say; 
those  given  here  were  not  paid  till  Henry  III  returned  to  England. 
Cf.  Ramsay,  Dawn  of  the  Constitution,  p.  148,  note  4,  for  money 
received  from  England;  also  p.  294;  R.  J.  Whitwell,  E.  H.  R., 
XVIII,  710,  for  the  income  of  the  year  1253-1254. 

28  It  was  composed  of  "archiepiscopos,  episcopos,  abbates,  priores, 
comites  et  barones  regni  Angliae"  (Matthew  Paris,  VI,  282). 

261 


STUDIES  IN  TAXATION 

regents  also  asked  for  an  aid  from  the  lower  clergy  which 
the  prelates  would  not  grant  at  this  time.  In  return  for 
the  promises  of  aid,  the  king  confirmed  the  charters  in 
the  counties  and  promised  that  the  assistance  given  him 
at  this  time  should  not  be  considered  as  a  precedent.29 
There  was  some  opposition  to  the  aid  among  the  barons, 
for  it  was  thought  that  there  was  no  danger  of  an  attack 
from  Spain.30  In  addition  to  the  help  promised  by  the 
council,  the  regents  ordered  the  sheriffs  to  hire  as  many 
knights  and  sergeants  as  possible  to  cross  with  the  barons 
in  the  spring.31  The  magnates  met  at  London  on  April 
26,  as  had  been  agreed  at  the  January  meeting.  An 
order  from  the  king  was  produced  asking  for  money  to 
help  him  against  the  king  of  Castile.  The  magnates 
doubted  whether  the  king  was  really  in  danger ;  if  he  was, 
they  offered  to  go  to  his  assistance,  but  they  do  not  seem 
to  have  granted  him  any  money.32  When  the  queen  sailed 

29  Shirley  (II,  101)  and  Matthew  Paris  (VI,  282)  give  letters  of 
the  regents  to  Henry  III  describing  the  action  taken  at  the  January 
council;  Theok.,  p.  154;  Dunst.,  p.  189;  Matthew  Paris,  V,  423-425; 
in  the  Cal.  Pat.  Rolls,  II,  279,  281,  are  given  the  letters  patent  that 
the  assistance  shall  not  be  a  precedent  and  there  is  mention  there 
of  the  order  to  the  sheriffs  to  proclaim  the  charter  in  the  counties; 
Lords'  Report  on  the  Dignity  of  a  Peer,  III,  App.  I,  pp.  12-13. 

so  Matthew  Paris,  V,  424. 

si  Order  to  the  sheriff  of  Wiltshire  (Close  Rolls,  no.  67,  m.  12  d) ; 
the  same  order  was  given  all  the  sheriffs  (Matthew  Paris,  VI,  287). 

32  Matthew  Paris  says  that  Henry  III  was  merely  talking  of  the 
king  of  Castile  to  help  persuade  the  magnates  to  grant  him  money, 
that  the  earl  of  Leicester  was  present  and  told  them  the  true  situa- 
tion, and  that  they  returned  home  without  doing  anything  (V,  440). 
Negotiations  between  Henry  III  and  Alfonso  had  been  in  progress 
for  some  time  and  this  was  probably  the  cause  of  the  magnates' 
suspicions.  The  treaty  was  made  on  April  1  (Rymer,  I,  297-298) 
and  news  could  have  reached  England  while  the  barons  were  meeting. 
The  Annals  of  Tewkesbury  say  that  the  council  met  first  at  Ports- 
mouth, then  moved  to  London,  and  then  to  Winchester,  and  that  the 
earl  of  Gloucester,  all  the  magnates  assenting,  refused  to  go  to 
Gascony  unless  the  lands  of  which  he  had  been  deprived  were 
returned  to  him  (Theok.,  p.  155). 


UNDER  JOHN  AND  HENRY  III 

for  France  in  May,  she  was  accompanied  by  some  knights 
and  the  archbishop  of  Canterbury.33  The  representatives 
of  the  counties  also  met,  but  it  is  not  known  what  action 
they  took.34  At  the  same  meeting  of  the  magnates,  the 
arrangements  for  the  immediate  collection  of  the  tenth 
were  made.35  Part  of  the  clergy  had  promised  in  January 
to  bring  an  aid  for  the  king  at  Easter  time,  and  one  case 
is  given  where  this  was  done.  The  abbot  of  St.  Albans 
gave  to  the  queen  £50  when  she  crossed  and  to  earl 
Richard  an  equal  sum.36  Probably  others  did  the  same. 

The  account  of  this  expedition  shows  that  the  king  was 
still  able  to  enforce  military  service  in  France  from  his 
tenants  and  that  they  disliked  it.  The  speech  of  the  earl 
of  Gloucester,  as  reported  by  Matthew  Paris,  shows  that 
they  wished  to  hold  Henry  III  within  the  limits  of  the 
feudal  contract.37 

THE  TENTH  OF  125438 

Before  discussing  this  tax,  it  will  be  necessary  to  notice 
the  taxes  on  the  clergy  which  were  levied  by  the  pope  for 

ss  Matthew  Paris,  V,  447 ;  a  list  of  letters  of  protection,  issued  on 
May  3  to  persons  going  with  the  queen,  is  given  in  Cal.  Pat.  Rolls, 
II,  374;  not  all  of  these  were  tenants  in  chief  and  not  all  of  these 
went,  e.g.  the  earl  of  Gloucester  who  received  a  letter  did  not  cross 
till  September  (Theok.,  p.  154). 

34  The  writ  of  summons  is  in  the  Close  Rolls,  no.  67,  m.  13  d; 
Select  Charters,  p.  376;  Matthew  Paris,  VI,  286.  The  orders  were 
carried  out  and  choice  made,  for  one  of  those  elected  in  Essex  could 
not  serve  and  on  April  2,  the  sheriff  was  ordered  to  have  another 
chosen  in  his  stead  (Close  Rolls,  no.  67,  m.  9). 

ss  See  below,  p.  271. 

se  Matthew  Paris,  VI,  293.  This  was  not  a  delayed  payment  of 
the  aid  for  the  king's  crossing  in  1253;  see  above,  p.  256,  note  10. 

37  "Comes  insuper  Gloverniae  auxilium  secundum  posse  suum  spo- 
pondit;  addens  quod  nullo  modo  ipsum  regem  juvaret  ad  adquiren- 
dum  terram,  sed  ad  corpus  suum,  si  ipsum  rex  Castellae  hostiliter 
impeteret,  liberandum"  (Matthew  Paris,  V,  424). 

ss  On  the  taxation  of  the  clergy  from  1254  on,  see  the  article  by 
Miss  Rose  Graham,  on  "The  Taxation  of  Pope  Nicholas  IV,"  in 

263 


STUDIES  IN  TAXATION 

the  benefit  of  the  Roman  curia  after  1229,  for  such  cases 
serve  as  an  introduction  to  the  royal  taxation  of  the 
clergy. 

In  1238,  the  pope  was  in  want  of  money  to  carry  on 
the  war  against  the  emperor  and  he  wrote  to  the  legate, 
Otho,  suggesting  that  the  English  clergy  give  a  thirtieth 
of  their  revenues  for  three  years.39  In  1240,  the  legate 
asked  for  a  fifth  of  the  revenues  of  foreigners  beneficed 
in  England  and  also  for  a  contribution  from  the  native 
clergy.40  There  was  much  opposition  to  this  demand. 
Otho  held  a  meeting  of  the  bishops  and  abbots  in  the  early 
part  of  the  year  to  obtain  their  consent  to  the  levy,  but 
they  asked  that  the  matter  be  postponed.41  Later  he  met 
the  bishops  and  they  declined  to  agree  to  the  tax  without 
the  consent  of  the  archdeacons.  Accordingly  another 
meeting  was  held  in  July  when  the  legate  received  nothing 
more  than  reasons  for  not  making  a  grant.42  Then  he 
called  together  the  rectors  of  Berkshire,  who  also  refused 
to  assent  to  the  tax.43  He  was  more  successful  when  he 
approached  the  prelates  individually.  Many  yielded,  in 

E.  H.  R.,  XXIII,  434,  which  has  been  freely  drawn  upon  here.  On 
the  tenth  of  1254,  see  the  valuable  essay  by  W.  H.  Hudson  on  "The 
Norwich  Taxation  of  1254,"  in  Norfolk  and  Norwich  Archaeological 
Society  Publications,  XVII  (1910),  43-157,  of  which  I  regret  that 
I  have  not  been  able  to  make  extended  use.  See  also  Barker,  pp. 
55-59. 

39  Bliss,  Calendar  of  Papal  Registers,  I,  177;  "de  .  .  .  tricesima" 
(Matthew  Paris,  VI,  91). 

4°  Matthew  Paris,  IV,  9 ;  a  fifth  from  foreign  clerks  and  lump 
sums  from  the  prelates  (Dunst.,  p.  154)  ;  a  fifth  from  foreign  clerks 
and  "xii  omnium  bonorum  beneficiatorum  Angliae"  (Theok.,  pp.  115, 
116)  ;  a  fifteenth  (Wint.,  p.  88)  ;  Burton,  p.  257;  Hist,  et  Cart.  S.  Petri 
Olouc.,  I,  28;  Barker,  p.  54. 

4i  Matthew  Paris,  IV,  10. 

42/6tU,  IV,  37;  Theok.,  p.  115. 

«  Matthew  Paris  gives  objections  as  coming  from  the  rectors  of 
Berkshire  when  the  demand  for  the  tax  was  made  from  them  "et 
quosdam  alios"  (IV,  38-43).  The  Burton  annalist  gives  practically 
the  same  document,  omitting  the  last  four  arguments  against  the 

264 


UNDER  JOHN  AND  HENRY  III 

each  case  paying  a  lump  sum.  The  archbishop  of  Canter- 
bury paid  800  marks;  the  church  of  Lincoln,  £100;  the 
prior  of  Dunstable,  20  marks;  the  bishop  of  Lincoln, 
600  marks  for  his  secular  clergy;  the  prior  of  Tewkes- 
bury,  50  marks ;  the  abbot  of  Burton,  30  marks ;  the  prior 
of  Worcester,  140  marks.44  Another  papal  delegate, 
Peter  Rosso,  had  arrived  in  England  to  collect  money. 
He  obtained  considerable  sums  from  religious  bodies, 
dealing  with  each  separately.  Each  house  paid  a  lump 
sum  and  its  revenues  were  not  assessed.45  At  a  final  meet- 
ing of  the  clergy  on  November  1,  the  legate  obtained  the 
tax  from  all  who  up  to  that  time  had  resisted.46 

In  1244,  Martin,  a  papal  clerk,  was  sent  to  England 
by  Innocent  IV,  with  powers  of  suspension  and  interdict, 
to  collect  arrears  of  papal  taxes  and  to  exact  money  in 
procurations,  provisions,  etc.,  from  the  English  clergy.47 
In  addition  he  demanded  the  immediate  payment  of  a  lump 

tax,  but  he  states  that  it  came  from  the  rectores  ecclesiarum  Anglioe 
and  related  to  the  levy  of  1244  demanded  by  Innocent  IV  {Burton, 
pp.  265-267).  There  is  nothing  contradictory  in  the  statements 
of  the  two  chroniclers  as  to  the  source  of  the  document;  as  to 
the  date,  one  item  in  the  list  of  objections  shows  that  Matthew 
Paris  is  correct:  "item,  quod  nuper  alias  praestiterunt  contributionem 
in  casu  consimili,  et  promissum  esset  praebentibus,  auctoritate  istius 
ejusdem  Papse,  quod  de  caetero  non  fieret  hujusmodi  exactio,  etc." 
(Burton,  p.  266;  Matthew  Paris,  IV,  41).  This  seems  to  mean  that 
the  contribution  now  demanded  was  to  be  made  to  that  pope  who  had 
formerly  promised  that  another  exaction  of  this  kind  should  not  be 
made.  This  would  refer  to  Gregory  IX,  who  died  in  1241,  and  not 
to  Innocent  IV,  for  the  contribution  which  he  demanded  in  1244  was 
his  first. 

44  Matthew  Paris,  IV,  15,  32;  Dunst.,  pp.  154,  155;  Theok.,  p.  116; 
Burton,  p.  366;  Wig.,  p.  432. 

45  Matthew   Paris,   IV,  35-37.     Peter   and   a   companion  went   to 
Scotland  where  they  obtained  £3,000  (ibid.,  55,  160). 

*«  Ibid.,  IV,  60;  Theok.,  p.  116.  The  collection  of  this  levy  for  the 
pope  continued  through  1240  and  1241  (Matthew  Paris,  IV,  137) ; 
Close  Rolls,  IV,  361.  Matthew  Paris  says  that  a  twentieth  was 
collected  in  Ireland  (ibid.,  p.  160). 

47  Matthew  Paris,  IV,  284,  379,  391;  Dunst.,  p.  166. 

265 


STUDIES  IN  TAXATION 

sum  of  10,000  marks  from  the  clergy  as  a  whole,  a  demand 
that  was  strongly  opposed  by  the  king  as  well  as  by  the 
clergy  and  lay  magnates.  The  papal  emissary  was  finally 
obliged  to  leave  the  country  in  1245  and  the  question  of 
the  subsidy  was  postponed  till  the  council  of  Lyons  met.48 
Then  the  pope  asked  for  a  twentieth  of  the  revenues  of 
the  clergy  for  three  years.49  A  great  council  was  held  at 
London  on  March  18,  1246,  and  the  grievances  of  the 
English  against  the  Roman  curia  were  discussed.  Letters 
were  written  to  the  pope,  one  by  the  bishops,  one  by  the 
abbots  and  priors,  one  by  the  laity,  and  one  by  the  king 
who  also  wrote  to  the  cardinals.  Pending  the  pope's  reply, 
the  twentieth  was  not  to  be  levied.50  The  council  of 
London  had  hardly  dissolved  when  the  bishop  of  Norwich 
issued  orders  for  the  collection  of  a  subsidy  of  6,000 
marks  for  the  pope.  It  appeared  from  the  papal  letter 
which  the  collector  enclosed  that  the  bishops  who  were 
at  Lyons  had  agreed  that  the  English  church  should  pay 
this  amount.51  Henry  III  at  first  forbade  this  to  be  paid, 

«  Matthew  Paris,  IV,  311-316,  368-370,  374-376,  379,  416,  419-422; 
Dunst.,  p.  167;  Robert!  Grosseteste  Epistolae,  pp.  276-277;  Cal.  Pat. 
Rolls,  I,  463.  The  annals  of  Burton  give  a  reply  of  the  clergy,  for 
which,  see  above,  note  43. 

*»  Matthew  Paris,  IV,  458;  Burton,  p.  269. 

so  Matthew  Paris,  IV,  526-536;  Burton,  pp.  278-280,  283-285.  The 
whole  extract  from  Burton  is  the  same  as  part  of  the  extract  from 
Matthew  Paris.  The  latter  states  that  this  action  was  taken  before 
the  decision  was  made  to  pay  6,000  marks,  the  twentieth;  the  former 
connects  all  the  protests  with  the  second  payment  of  11,000  marks. 

5i  Matthew  Paris,  IV,  555-557.  This  order  was  issued  on  March 
24.  Delegates  had  been  sent  by  the  king  and  magnates  to  protest  at 
the  council  of  Lyons  against  the  papal  exactions.  These  had  refused 
to  agree  to  any  payment  by  the  English  church  (Matthew  Paris,  IV, 
419-420;  Dunst.,  p.  167).  The  bishops  however  had  consented;  notice 
also  "de  importabili  contributione  praetacta,  ad  quam  episcopi  in 
generali  concilio  clerum  infeliciter  obligarunt"  (Matthew  Paris,  IV, 
590). 

266 


UNDER  JOHN  AND  HENRY  III 

but  was  finally  forced  to  yield.52  The  tax  was  not  based 
on  an  assessed  value  of  clerical  revenues ;  the  bishops  had 
agreed  to  pay  a  lump  sum  of  6,000  marks  and  this  was 
apportioned  among  the  dioceses.53 

In  the  same  year,  the  pope  made  another  demand  for 
money,  from  certain  clergy  half  of  their  revenues,  from 
others  a  third,  and  from  others  a  twentieth,  all  for  three 
years.54  Clergy,  laity,  and  king  all  strongly  opposed 
this  contribution.  The  pope  had  appointed  the  bishop 
of  London  to  carry  out  his  mandate.  On  December  1, 
1246,  the  latter  held  a  meeting  of  some  of  the  bishops  in 
London  and  they,  fortified  by  the  king's  command,  refused 
to  consent  to  this  tax.55  On  February  2,  1247,  there  was 
another  council  of  the  lay  magnates  and  the  archdeacons, 
who  had  been  specially  summoned;  the  bishops  however 
absented  themselves.  Letters  protesting  against  the  tax 
were  drawn  up  and  sent  to  the  pope  and  cardinals.56  On 
April  7,  however,  the  prelates  gave  way.  A  lump  sum  of 
11,000  marks  was  granted,  which  was  paid  to  the  bishops 
of  Norwich  and  Winchester,  the  collectors  of  the  previous 
subsidy.57  The  pope  sent  out  friars  to  collect  sums  from 
individual  churchmen.58 

52  Matthew  Paris,  IV,  554,  557-558,  560-561,  577. 

53  Ibid.,    IV,    555-557;    "cum    nuper    nomine    vicesimae    sex    milia 
marcarum  domino  papae  sint  soluta"  (ibid.,  p.  584);  Burton,  p.  282; 
Wykes,  p.  94;  Rob.  Grosseteste  Epist.,  pp.  340-341. 

5*  An  interesting  feature  of  this  demand  is  that  certain  ecclesiastics 
were  to  pay  a  twentieth  on  incomes  of  100m  and  less;  when  the 
income  exceeded  100m,  a  third  of  the  excess  was  to  be  paid. 

55  Matthew  Paris,  IV,  580-585;  Burton,  pp.  277-278,  280-282. 

56  Matthew  Paris,  IV,  590,  594-597. 

5T  Ibid.,  IV,  622-623;  in  1246,  Dunstable  paid  6m  5s  and  in  1247, 
24m  (Dunst.,  pp.  171,  175) ;  the  priory  of  Worcester  paid  in  both 
years  (Wig.,  p.  438).  The  pope's  demand  is  also  given  in  Wykes, 
p.  94.  Perhaps  the  bishops  at  the  council  of  Lyons  had  also  agreed 
to  this  levy,  for  Matthew  Paris  says  "de  importabili  contributione 
prastacta,  ad  quam  episcopi  in  generali  concilio  clerum  infeliciter 
obligarunt"  (IV,  590).  He  may  however  be  confusing  this  with  the 
twentieth.  It  is  apparent  from  the  protests  that  the  sum  of  11,000 

267 


STUDIES  IN  TAXATION 

In  1250,  the  clergy  despatched  representatives  to  Rome 
to  work  against  the  right  of  visitation  of  the  archbishop 
of  Canterbury.  An  aid  of  an  eightieth  of  revenues  was 
taken  to  provide  the  delegates  with  funds.59  In  1252, 
they  were  successful  in  obtaining  a  limitation  of  the  arch- 
bishop's right  of  visitation,  for  which  they  paid  the  pope 
6,000  marks,  apportioned  among  the  bishoprics.  No 
assessment  of  property  seems  to  have  been  made.60 

Henry  Ill's  promise  to  assume  the  cross  led  to  the 
systematic  taxation  of  the  clergy  for  the  king's  benefit. 
He  first  obtained  from  the  pope  a  grant  of  the  sums 
collected  in  England  for  the  crusade.61  In  1250,  the  pope 

marks  was  fixed  as  a  composition  for  the  tax  by  the  clergy  in 
England,  not  by  the  pope  and  bishops  at  Lyons. 

ss  The  bishop  of  Lincoln  was  asked  for  6,000  marks,  which  he 
refused  (ibid.,  600).  The  abbey  of  St.  Albans  was  asked  for  400m; 
it  appealed  to  the  pope  and  the  amount  was  reduced  to  200m.  More 
trouble  arose  when  it  was  asked  to  contribute  to  the  donation  of 
11,000  marks  (ibid.,  pp.  600,  617-622). 

59  "Acceperunt  igitur  a  beneficiatis  de  qualibet  marca  duos  dena- 
rios"  (Matthew  Paris,  V,  186) ;  "pro  qualibet  marca  duos  denarios 
exigendo"  (Dunst.,  p.  181). 

«o  Matthew  Paris,  V,  346,  VI,  232;  £6,000  (Theok.,  p.  150);  4,000 
marks,  Burton,  p.  300;  Osney,  p.  104;  Wykes,  p.  104;  Wig.,  p.  441. 
The  chronicle  of  Dunstable,  p.  186,  says  that  a  twentieth  was  paid; 
probably  this  was  because  the  sum,  6,000  marks,  was  what  the  clergy 
had  paid  for  the  twentieth  of  1246  and  the  assessment  of  that  year 
may  have  been  followed. 

There  is  another  case  of  assessment  of  ecclesiastical  goods  in  1252. 
The  bishop  of  Rochester  took  a  fifth  for  five  years:  "a  beneficiatis  in 
suo  episcopatu  quintam  partem  reddituum  suorum  usque  in  quin- 
quennium, .  .  .  non  secundum  aestimationem  bonorum  ecclesiasticorum 
a  subjectis,  sed  quocunque  modo  ex  bonis  ecclesiasticis  emergentium" 
(Matthew  Paris,  V,  273).  In  1256,  there  is  another  case.  The  dean 
and  canons  of  St.  Martin's,  London,  gave  "with  no  one  contradicting" 
"the  yearly  value  of  their  prebends,  calculated  according  to  the 
ancient  taxation,  in  aid  of  their  church,  so  that  in  the  first  year,  one 
quarter,  in  the  second  year,  the  second  quarter,  .  .  .  shall  be  given, 
etc.,"  that  is  a  fourth  for  four  years.  The  money  was  to  be  collected 
by  one  of  the  canons  (Cal.  Pat.  Rolls,  II,  588). 

eiGasquet,  Henry  III  and  the  Church,  p.  276. 

268 


UNDER  JOHN  AND  HENRY  III 

gave  the  king  a  tenth  of  all  the  revenues  of  the  clergy  for 
three  years,  to  be  collected  by  the  prelates  after  the  king 
should  swear  to  go  on  the  crusade  and  had  fixed  a  date 
for  his  departure.  The  yield  of  the  first  two  years  was 
to  be  collected  and  delivered  to  the  king  when  he  was  ready 
to  set  out.62  After  Easter,  1252,  Henry  III  swore  to 
leave  on  June  24,  1256.63  He  then  asked  the  archbishop 
of  Canterbury  to  issue  orders  for  the  collection  to  be 
begun  on  September  29. 84  Similar  orders  were  sent  to 
the  archbishop  of  York.  The  clergy  of  the  latter  prov- 
ince refused  to  allow  the  grant  without  the  assent  of  the 
whole  church  of  England.65  Accordingly  the  prelates 
were  summoned  to  meet  at  Westminster  on  October  13, 
1252,  and  the  question  of  the  tenth  was  discussed.  The 
king  asked  that  the  money  of  at  least  two  and  a  half 
years  be  paid  him  at  once.  The  prelates  proposed  condi- 
tions which  the  king  refused,  and  they  then  declined  to 
make  the  grant.  Henry  III  tried  to  break  up  the  oppo- 
sition by  approaching  each  singly,  but  the  attempt  failed. 
Another  council  was  appointed  to  meet  after  Easter, 
1253.66 

Despite  this  refusal,  the  king  sought  to  begin  the  col- 
lection before  the  council  met  again.  In  November,  1252, 
he  appointed  as  collector  the  bishop  of  Chichester.67  In 
January,  1253,  the  bishops  of  the  province  of  Canterbury 

62  Rymer,  I,  272,  274;  in  1252  (Theok.,  p.  150).    February  16,  1251, 
the  pope  asked  the  bishops  and  archbishops  to  allow  the  first  two 
years  of  the  tenth  to  be  collected  for  the  king  before  he  set  out 
(Bliss,  I,  267). 

63  Rymer,  I,  282. 

6*  Vincent,  p.  85,  citing  Rot.  Litt.  Claus.,  36  Henry  III,  m.  18  d. 

65  Shirley,  II,  95. 

•66  Matthew  Paris,  V,  324-333;  Burton,  p.  305.  According  to 
Matthew  Paris,  the  king  produced  an  order  from  the  pope,  directing 
the  tenth  of  the  first  two  years  to  be  collected  for  the  king  before 
he  started.  Probably  this  was  the  papal  letter  of  September  1,  cited 
by  Bliss,  I,  279. 

67  Rymer,  I,  288;  Gal.  Pat.  Rolls,  II,  164. 

269 


STUDIES  IN  TAXATION 

met  at  London  and  the  tenth  was  again  discussed.  They 
finally  agreed  that  if  the  king  would  promise  to  redress 
certain  grievances  of  the  church,  they  would  make  him 
a  liberal  grant  of  aid,  though  they  did  not  as  yet  agree 
to  the  tenth.  The  king  was  willing  to  promise.  Articles 
containing  the  grievances  were  to  be  drawn  up.68 

On  April  27,  a  great  parliament  met  at  London.  After 
a  session  lasting  over  two  weeks,  the  king  obtained  the 
grant  of  a  tenth  for  three  years  and  in  return  swore  to 
observe  the  charters.69  The  collection  however  did  not 
begin  till  after  Easter,  1254.  The  pope  had  instructed 
the  clergy  that  the  money  of  the  first  two  years  should 
be  collected  and  delivered  to  the  king  when  he  started, 
and  this  was  apparently  interpreted  to  mean  that  the 
collection  should  not  begin  till  two  years  before  the  sworn 
date  of  his  departure.70  On  September  12,  1253,  the  pope 
wrote,  appointing  new  collectors  and  directing  them  to 
begin  the  work  at  once,  but  his  orders  were  not  carried 

«8  The  proceedings  described  here  are  given  in  Matthew  Paris,  V, 
359-360;  a  meeting  of  the  bishops  is  mentioned  in  Cal.  Pat.  Rolls, 
II,  171. 

••  "concessa  est  igitur  decima  pars  proventuum  ab  ecclesia  re- 
cipienda  cum  iter  Jerosolimitanum  (arriperet)  .  .  .  per  triennium"; 
at  this  meeting  the  aid  to  knight  the  king's  son  was  also  granted: 
"et  a  militibus,  scutagium  illo  anno"  (Matthew  Paris,  V,  373-377). 
Excommunication  of  violators  of  the  charters  is  given  in  Burton,  but 
there  is  no  mention  of  the  grant  of  the  tenth  at  this  time  (Burton, 
p.  305);  Rymer,  I,  289;  Bliss,  I,  306. 

™  "fraternitate  vestra  .  .  .  mandamus  quatinus  postquam  statu- 
tum  fuerit  ejus  passagium  et  juratum,  per  biennium  ante  idem 
passagium  decimam  .  .  .  colligentes  etc."  (pope's  letter  to  the  prel- 
ates, 1250,  Rymer,  I,  274);  Bliss,  I,  279;  in  May,  1253,  the  king 
declared  to  the  crusaders  coming  from  Ireland  that  he  had  sworn 
to  leave  on  the  crusade  at  midsummer,  1256  (Cal.  Pat.  Rolls,  II,  191). 
So  the  regents  writing  to  Henry  III  in  February,  1254,  say  "decima 
clericorum  vobis  concessa  de  crucesignatione  de  primero  anno  quae 
in  praesentia  debet  incipere"  (Shirley,  II,  101);  the  same  to  the  same, 
"propter  decimam  colligendam  ...  in  proximum"  (Matthew  Paris, 
VI,  283). 

270 


UNDER  JOHN  AND  HENRY  III 

out.71  At  a  meeting  of  the  magnates  at  Westminster  on 
January  27,  1254,  the  king  through  the  regents  asked 
that  the  tenth  of  the  first  year  should  be  given  him  to 
use  in  Gascony.  The  prelates  refused  to  agree  to  this,72 
nor  do  they  seem  to  have  granted  the  request  at  the 
Easter  meeting.73  Finally  in  May,  1254,  the  arrange- 
ments were  made  for  the  immediate  levy  of  the  tenth. 
The  bishops  of  Chichester  and  Norwich  and  the  abbot  of 
Westminster  were  in  charge  of  the  work.74  Each  prelate 

71  Matthew  Paris,  VI,  296;  Bliss,  I,  290;  Cal  Pat.  Rolls,  II,  164. 
These  collectors  were  the  same  as  those  who  took  charge  in  1254,  viz., 
the  bishops  of  Chichester  and  Norwich  and  the  abbot  of  Westminster. 

72  Matthew  Paris,  VI,  283;  Shirley,  II,  101;  Dunst.,  p.  189. 

73  This  is  not  quite  certain.    According  to  the  letter  of  the  regents, 
the  prelates  doubted  whether  the  lower  clergy  would  agree  to  the 
use  of  the  first  year's  tenth  in  Gascony  unless  the  king  issued  letters 
patent  declaring  that  this  took  the  place  of  the  first  year's  tenth  for 
the  crusade,  and  unless  the  king  postponed  the  collection  of  the  last 
two  years  till  just  before  he  started  ("collecta  ejusdem  decimae  de 
duobus  annis  sequentibus  .  .  .  ponatur  in  respectum  usque  ad  ter- 
minum  duorum  annorum  ante  passagium  vestrum,"  Shirley,  II,  101). 
The  Dunstable  annals  say  that  the  clergy  demanded  papal  letters 
to  the  effect  that  this  took  the  place  of  the  tenth  of  the  first  year  for 
the   crusade    (Dunst.,   p.    189).     No   such   letters   patent   have   been 
found,  but  arrangements  to  collect  the  tenth  were  made  after  Easter, 
1254,  and  most  of  the  chroniclers  say  that  it  was  granted  at  that 
time    (see  below).     Furthermore  the   whole   yield  of  the   first  year 
was  to  be  paid  on  September  29,  if  possible   (Close  Rolls,  no.  67, 
m.  8  d).     The  date  of  payment  suggests  that  the  tenth  was  to  be 
used  by  the  king  in   1254.     The  clergy  therefore  may  have  agreed 
to  the  king's  request.     But  it  is  to  be  observed  that  when  the  col- 
lectors in  July,  1254,  ordered  the  tenth  to  be  paid,  they  enclosed  a 
papal  letter  written  September  12,  1253,  which,  they  declared,  was 
"non  cancellatum,  non  abolitum,  non  in  aliqua  sui  parte  vitiatum." 
This  papal  order  stated  "volumus   autem  quod  in  tutis   locis   dicta 
pecunia    fideliter    deponatur,    assignanda    eidem    regi    pro    praefatae 
Terrae   (Sanctae)   subventione,  cum  iter  arripuerit  transmarinum,  ita 
quod   nihil  interim   sumatur  vel  extrahatur  exinde   absque   mandate 
sedis  Apostolicae  special!"    (Matthew  Paris,  VI,  296).     The  Burton 
annalist  says,  after  describing  the  assessment  on  his  priory,  "facta 
est  autem  solutio  istius  pecuniae  primo  anno  nunciis  ejusdem  epis- 
copi  .  .  .  et  in  depositum  missa"  (Burton,  p.  327). 

i*Cal.  Pat.  Rolls,  II,  370,  377;  Matthew  Paris,  VI,  297.    The  fact 

271 


STUDIES  IN  TAXATION 

had  a  different  district  to  supervise,  but  the  levy  is  gen- 
erally known  as  the  Norwich  taxation.  The  tax  fell  on 
spiritualities  (tithes,  offerings)  and  temporalities  (rents, 
income  from  lands).75  The  abbot  of  St.  Albans  paid  the 
tenth  of  all  the  revenues  of  his  churches,  "praeter  baro- 
niam."76  The  prior  of  Worcester  paid  £7  Is  l%d  on 
spiritualities  and  £19  10%d  on  temporalities.77  Land 
held  by  military  service  was  however  exempt.78 

A  new  assessment  was  made.  In  each  deanery,  the  dean 
and  three  important  rectors  or  vicars  made  oath  to  fix 
a  just  valuation  of  all  the  incomes  of  the  churches  and 

that  the  assessment  was  not  made  till  1254  leads  all  the  chroniclers 
to  put  the  date  of  the  grant  in  1254:  Dunst.,  p.  190;  Wykes,  p.  107; 
Osney,  p.  107;  Wint.,  p.  95;  Theok.,  p.  156;  Wig.,  p.  443;  Wav.,  p. 
348;  Cont.  Flor.  Wig.,  II,  184;  Burton,  p.  325,  who  speaks  of  the 
bishop  of  Norwich  only  as  the  assessor.  Both  Burton  and  Matthew 
Paris  say  that  the  bishop  of  Norwich  acted  unwillingly.  It  is  to 
be  noticed  however  that  the  bishop  had  been  one  of  the  assessors  of 
the  papal  subsidy  of  1247  and  had  apparently  done  his  work  so  well 
that  the  pope  now  appointed  him  to  do  similar  work.  Further, 
according  to  a  writ  on  the  Close  Roll,  he,  as  one  of  the  assessors,  was 
responsible  for  a  measure  designed  to  make  the  clergy  pay  on  the 
full  value  of  their  property,  viz.,  that  if  they  thought  that  any  one 
had  made  too  low  an  estimate,  the  truth  should  be  ascertained  by 
their  oath  and  that  of  their  neighbors :  "cum  nuper  consilio  nostro  .  .  . 
per  litteras  vestras  significaveritis  quod  in  imponenda  decima  .  .  . 
formam  subscriptam  provideritis  .  .  .  videlicet  per  sententiam  excom- 
municationis  promulgandae  in  omnes  personas  ecclesiasticas  qui 
justam  proventuum  suorum  estimationem  .  .  .  ocultabunt  et  si  aliquos 
merito  suspectos  habueritis  quod  sua  beneficia  minus  plene  estima- 
verint  per  sacramentum  ipsorum  vel  vicinorum  suorum  rei  veritatem 
plenius  eruendo,  vobis  significandum  duximus  quod  ex  quo  vobis 
videtur  quod  forma  ilia  est  ydonea  earn  approbamus"  (Close  Rolls, 
no.  67,  m.  8  d). 

75  The  prelates  had  not  wished  to  include  income  from  their  lands, 
but  the  pope  refused  to  admit  this:  "faciatis  .  .  .  de  maneriis  eisdem 
decimam  .  .  .  exhiberi"  (Rymer,  I,  280,  anno  1252)  ;  Bliss,  I,  284. 

?«  Matthew  Paris,  V,  451. 

"  Wig.,  p.  443;  "tarn  de  laico  feudo  quam  de  ecclesiis"  (Dunst.,  p. 
196) ;  for  the  prior  of  Malton,  see  Graham,  in  Royal  Hist.  Soc.  Trans., 
New  Series,  XVIII,  148;  Theok.,  p.  156;  Burton,  pp.  325-327. 

™  See  below. 

272 


UNDER  JOHN  AND  HENRY  III 

of  the  clergy.  If  necessary,  they  could  compel  anyone 
to  swear  to  the  value  of  any  goods.  They  were  also  to 
assess  property  which  lay  in  the  deanery  but  belonged 
to  religious  houses  outside.  The  rest  of  the  property  of 
religious  houses,  except  parish  churches  and  goods  in 
the  king's  hand,  was  to  be  assessed  by  the  head  and  some 
other  members  of  the  house.  Those  who  opposed  the  tax 
or  swore  falsely  were  liable  to  excommunication.  A  roll 
of  the  assessment  was  to  be  drawn  up  and  returned  to 
the  chief  collector,  to  whom  the  tax  was  later  to  be  paid.79 
The  detailed  account  of  the  goods  and  revenues,  the  use 
of  the  jury,  the  oath,  and  the  penalty  of  excommunication 
were  all  designed  to  get  at  the  real  value  of  clerical 
property.  No  such  searching  inquiry  had  been  made 
since  1229  and  the  severity  of  the  measures  caused  com- 
plaint. The  whole  yield  of  the  first  year  was  to  be  paid 
on  September  29,  if  possible;  if  not,  part  then  and  part 
later.80  The  money  was  stored  in  churches  and  monas- 

79  Burton,  pp.  325-327;  Matthew  Paris,  V,  451;  Close  Rolls,  No. 
67,  m.  8   d.     For   returns   made,  Burton,   pp.   327,   366;   Registrum 
Malmesburiense   (Rolls  Series),  I,  268-271;  Liber  Mem.  Ecclesie  de 
Bernewelle,  pp.  190-199.     The  last  is  apparently  the  valuation  made 
in  1254,  but  the  tax  levied  was  a  twentieth,  not  a  tenth,  perhaps  the 
levy  of  1268.    See  also  Graham,  E.  H.  R.,  XXIII,  436,  "The  Taxation 
of  Pope   Nicholas   IV,"   for  references  to  other  returns.     See   also 
Royal  Hist.  Soc.  Trans.,  in  note  77. 

80  "primum    terminum    ad    pecuniam    solvendam    circa    festum    S. 
Michaelis  proximo  futurum  praefigatis  et  si  ad  unum  terminum  haberi 
non    poterit    praefigatis    alios    terminos    solutionis    ejusdem    pecuniae 
prout  vobis  magis  videritis  expedire"    (letter  of  the  regents  to  the 
collectors,  May  28,  1254,  Close  Rolls,  no.  67,  m.  8  d).     Thus  it  was 
hardly  expected   that   the   assessment  would  be  completed   as   early 
as  this.     On  October  9,  Henry  III  wrote  to  the  official  of  the  arch- 
bishop of  Canterbury,   asking  him   to   ascertain  carefully   the  value 
of  the  tenth,  although  he  said  it  might  seem  difficult  or  even  impos- 
sible to  do  so  (quod  cautiori  modo  et  certiori  quo  poterit,  diligenter 
scrutari  et  inquiri  faciat  estimacionem  et  valenciam  decime)   (Michel, 
Roles   gascons,   no.   3727).     Miss    Graham,   E.   H.   R.,   XXIII,   467, 
thinks  that  this  request  was  an  order  for  a  new,  independent  inquiry 
into  the  value  of  church  property  and  connects  it  with  the  writ  for 

273 


STUDIES  IN  TAXATION 

teries  and  remained  in  charge  of  the  collectors ;  it  was  not 
turned  over  to  the  exchequer.81 

Henry  III  was  not  satisfied  with  the  grant  which  had 
been  made.  He  desired  to  extend  the  tenth  to  the  baronies 
of  the  clergy.  This  was  opposed  and  on  February  5, 
1255,  orders  were  issued  to  suspend  such  demands  till 
the  meeting  of  the  great  council  after  the  following 
Easter.82  At  that  time  the  king  asked  for  a  tenth  from 
the  baronies  of  both  laity  and  clergy.  After  deliberation 
the  council  asked  for  the  confirmation  of  the  charters  and 
for  the  appointment  of  a  justiciar,  a  chancellor,  and  a 
treasurer  who  should  not  be  removed  without  the  consent 
of  the  magnates.  The  king  declined  to  agree  to  this 
request  and  the  meeting  was  finally  prorogued  till 
October.83  The  entrance  of  Henry  III  into  the  Sicilian 
affair  gave  the  pope  a  more  direct  interest  in  the  product 
of  the  tenth.  The  king  had  promised  to  pay  a  lump  sum 
of  135,541  marks  together  with  interest  for  the  expenses 
already  incurred  by  the  papacy  in  Sicily.84  In  May, 
1254,  the  pope  extended  the  period  of  the  tenth  from 
three  to  five  years  and  ordered  the  collectors  to  store  the 
receipts  in  safe  places,  where  they  were  to  be  kept,  not,  as 

an  inquest  into  the  manors  of  religious  houses  issued  October  13 
from  the  chancery,  given  in  Matthew  Paris,  V,  464  (see  also,  Hall, 
Studies  in  English  Official  Historical  Documents,  p.  299,  note  9). 
But  it  seems  better  to  connect  it  with  the  writ  cited  from  the  Close 
Rolls  and  to  regard  it  merely  as  an  order  to  find  out  the  amount  of 
the  tenth. 

81  "the  money  for  the  Holy  Land  deposited  in  divers  churches  and 
monasteries"   (Col.  Pat.  Rolls,  II,  429,  500) ;  the  collectors  were  in 
charge  of  the  tenth  when  Rostand  arrived,  paid  some  of  it  to  mer- 
chants by  his  orders,  and  turned  the  rest  over  to  him  (ibid.,  pp.  462, 
508) ;  "solutio  istius  pecuniae  ...  in  depositum  missa"    (Burton,  p. 
327). 

82  Cal  Pat.  Rolls,  II,  396. 

83  Burton,   p.   336;    Matthew    Paris,   V,   493-495;   Dunst.,   p.    195; 
Wint.,  p.  95. 

8*Rymer,  I,  318;  135,501  marks  (Shirley,  II,  115). 

274 


UNDER  JOHN  AND  HENRY  III 

before,  till  the  king  set  out  on  the  crusade,  but  until  the 
pope  should  decide  how  it  should  be  spent  for  the  cru- 
sade.85 The  statement  suggests  that  it  was  planned  to 
spend  some  of  the  tenth  in  Sicily.  Finally  in  May,  1255, 
Alexander  IV  commuted  the  king's  vow  to  go  to  the  Holy 
Land  into  a  vow  to  invade  Sicily.  Rostand,  a  papal  sub- 
deacon,  was  sent  to  England  to  take  charge,  in  company 
with  the  archbishop  of  Canterbury,  of  the  collection  of 
all  moneys  for  the  crusade,  including  the  tenth.86  On 
October  13,  1255,  he  summoned  the  clergy  to  Westminster 
and  demanded  that  they  should  honor  bills  drawn  on  them 
in  favor  of  Italian  merchants,  that  the  payment  of  the 
tenth  of  the  second  year  should  be  hastened,  and  that  the 
lay  fees  of  the  clergy  should  pay  the  tenth;  at  the  same 
time,  the  king  asked  for  an  aid  from  his  lay  tenants.  The 
prelates  demurred  and  finally  their  answer  was  postponed 
till  January,  on  account  of  the  absence  of  some  important 
bishops.  Protests  were  sent  to  the  pope.  From  the  laity 
the  king  obtained  nothing.87 

Rostand  however  proceeded  to  issue  orders  for  a  new 
assessment  which  should  include  the  baronies  of  the 
clergy.88  New  deputies,  some  of  whom  were  foreigners, 
but  all  clergymen,  were  appointed.89  The  method  of 
assessment  was  the  same  as  in  the  preceding  year,90  but 
the  assessment  was  much  stricter  and  was  to  be  done 

85  Rymer,  I,  303.  The  grant  of  the  tenth  for  five  years  was  con- 
firmed by  Alexander  V  in  the  spring  of  1255  (Bliss,  I,  314).  Matthew 
Paris,  V,  452. 

se  Rymer,  I,  319,  322;  Matthew  Paris,  V,  519-520;  Burton,  pp.  350- 
352;  Dunst.,  p.  196. 

87  Matthew  Paris,  V,  520-521,  524-526,  530-532;  Burton,  p.  360. 

88  Burton,  p.  354. 

so  Ibid.,  p.  353;  Gal.  Pat.  Rolls,  II,  485,  505,  514,  515,  519. 

90  In  each  deanery,  the  dean  and  four  jurors  under  oath  made  the 
assessment  of  all  the  goods  and  revenues  of  the  churches;  each  abbot 
and  prior  with  some  members  of  his  house  assessed  their  own  prop- 
erty by  inquest  (Burton,  pp.  350-360). 

275 


STUDIES  IN  TAXATION 

more  rapidly.  The  only  deduction  allowed  in  the  valua- 
tion was  for  the  necessary  expenses  of  gathering  crops. 
All  manors  and  baronies  were  to  be  included.  No  religious 
house  of  any  sort  was  to  be  exempt.  No  item  of  property 
or  income  was  to  be  omitted.  Prices  had  risen  and  val- 
uations were  to  be  increased  accordingly.  No  attention 
was  to  be  paid  to  previous  assessments.91  The  roll  was 
to  be  forwarded  to  the  chief  collector  early  in  January 
at  the  latest;  all  the  arrears  of  the  first  year  and  the 
whole  product  of  the  second  year  were  to  be  paid  in 
January  and  February,  1256.92  To  allay  discontent,  the 
collectors  stated  that  the  tenth  was  to  be  paid  for  three 
years  only,93  despite  the  fact  that  the  pope  had  already 
granted  it  for  two  years  more.  This  new  assessment 

si  "decimam  de  vestris  maneriis  ac  etiam  baroniis  quam  pro  anno 
praeterito  non  solvistis";  "justas  aestimationes  omnium  ecclesiarum 
et  capellarum  exemptarum  et  non  exemptarum,  et  omnium  proven- 
tuum  ecclesiasticorum,  quocumque  nomine  censeantur,  secundum  quod 
ad  firmam  poni  solebant  vel  poni  possint  communibus  annis,  nullo 
deducto  praeter  expensas  necessarias  circa  fructus  colligendos  fac- 
tas,  .  .  .  praesentetis" ;  "fideli,  legitima,  et  justa  aestimatione  facta 
omnium  possessionum  suarum  temporalium  et  spiritualium" ; 
"aestimationes  omnium  non  fictas  sed  veras";  "non  timeant  taxatores 
praeteriti  anni  quod  reprehendentur  de  perjurio,  si  modo  plus  solito 
taxaverint,  quia  tune  multa  deducta  fuerunt  quae  modo  non  deducun- 
tur,  et  blada  carius  venduntur";  "nulla  sit  portio  adeo  modica,  in 
quibuscumque  consistat  in  pondere,  numero,  et  mensura,  terris,  pratis, 
pascuis,  pannagiis,  auro,  argento,  grano,  liquore,  operibus,  servitiis 
liberis  vel  rusticis  consuetudinibus,  in  panibus  deferendis  ad  Natale 
Domini,  gallinis,  ovis,  et  quibuscumque  aliis  ad  ecclesias  vel  eccle- 
siasticas  personas  spectantibus,  quin  taxetur  et  aestimetur";  "religio- 
sorum  nullum  excipimus,  nisi  privilegium  istius  exemptionis  .  .  . 
contra  Mamfredum  .  .  .  ostendat,  vel  per  literas  magistri  Rostandi 
immunis  sit"  (Burton,  pp.  350-360). 

92  Burton,  pp.  354,  355 ;  Matthew  Paris,  VI,  312,  313.    Rostand  was 
successful  in  making  the  clergy  pay  more  promptly;  Dunstable  did 
not  pay  the  first  year's  tenth  till  November  11,  1255,  eighteen  months 
after  the  tax  was  put  in  charge  and  after  Rostand  began  his  work; 
the  second  year's  tenth  was  paid  on  time,  about  February  2,  1256 
(Dunst.,  p.  196). 

93  Burton,  p.  357. 

276 


UNDER  JOHN  AND  HENRY  III 

aroused  much  complaint.  On  January  13,  1256,  Rostand 
met  an  assembly  of  the  clergy  at  London,  composed  of 
the  prelates  and  representatives  of  the  lower  clergy.  So 
strong  was  the  opposition  to  the  new  valuation  that 
Rostand  abandoned  it  and  ordered  the  tenth  of  the  second 
year  to  be  collected  on  the  basis  of  the  assessment  of 
1254. 94  It  is  not  stated  whether  any  of  the  clergy  paid 
the  tenth  on  their  land  held  by  military  service.  The 
bishops  however  did  not  do  so;  after  Easter,  1256,  they 
again  refused  to  assent  to  it.  The  pope  continued  to  order 
it  to  be  paid.95 

In  1257,  the  period  of  the  three  years  of  the  tenth 
which  the  clergy  had  granted  ended.  The  pope  had 
already  extended  the  period  from  three  to  five  years. 
The  king  was  unable  to  collect  it  on  this  authority  alone. 
After  the  middle  of  March,  1257,  a  great  council  com- 
posed of  the  barons,  the  prelates,  and  representatives  of 
the  lower  clergy  met  at  Westminster  and  remained  in 
session  till  the  early  part  of  April.96  The  king  asked  for 
an  aid  from  both  the  clergy  and  the  laity  for  the  Sicilian 
affair,  but  they  refused  to  grant  it.97  On  April  2,  Rostand 

94  Matthew  Paris,  V,  539,  VI,  314;  Burton,  p.  363.  Rostand's 
order  to  go  back  to  the  Norwich  assessment  was  issued  January  29, 
1256,  after  this  meeting,  apparently  as  a  result  of  the  opposition 
there.  One  of  the  complaints  of  the  lower  clergy  was  that  the  tax 
had  been  levied  on  them  without  their  consent:  "Procuratores  cleri- 
corum  beneficiatorum  archidiaconatus  Lincolniae  pro  tota  communi- 
tate  proponunt,  quod  gravati  sunt,  eo  quod  decima  beneficiorum 
suorum  domino  regi  fuit  concessa,  ipsis  non  vocatis;  maxime,  cum 
agitur  de  aliquo  obligando,  necessarius  est  ejus  expressus  consensus"; 
"Proponunt  procuratores  subditorum  ecclesiarum  Covintrensis  et 
Lichfeldensis  dioecesis;  .  .  .  item,  gravantur  in  eo,  quod  decima 
bonorum  suorum  ecclesiasticorum  concessa  fuit  domino  regi  in  sub- 
sidium  executionis  voti  sui  in  Terram  Sanctam,  ipsis  penitus  irre- 
quisitis"  (Burton,  pp.  360,  362). 

»s  Matthew  Paris,  V,  553;  Rymer,  I,  342,  345,  346. 

»«  Burton,  pp.  384,  388;  Matthew  Paris,  V,  621. 

»7  Burton,  p.   386;   Matthew   Paris,   V,   623;   Dunst.,   pp.   199-200. 

277 


STUDIES  IN  TAXATION 

asked  the  clergy  to  continue  the  tax  on  clerical  property 
for  two  years  more  and  gave  papal  authority  for  this 
demand.  At  first  he  met  with  no  success.  Finally,  he 
produced  a  papal  letter  addressed  to  himself  and  to  the 
bishops  of  Norwich  and  Salisbury,  directing  them  to 
compound  for  this  tenth  in  a  lump  sum.  It  was  agreed 
that  the  meeting  should  be  prorogued  till  May  8  and  that 
in  the  meantime  the  prelates  should  consult  the  clergy 
at  home  and  learn  their  will.98  When  they  met  again, 
they  offered  the  king  £52,000"  and  after  some  delay  this 
may  have  been  accepted.100 

At  the  close  of  this  year,  the  pope  sent  Herlot,  another 
nuncio,  to  England  with  Rostand  to  get  money.  In  a 
great  council,  held  on  March  31,  1258,  the  king  asked  for 
an  aid.  This  was  refused  repeatedly  by  the  magnates, 
although  Henry  prolonged  the  council  till  May  5  in  the 
hope  of  breaking  down  their  opposition.101  He  also 
applied  to  religious  houses  to  go  surety  for  him  for  con- 
siderable sums  and  was  partly  successful.102  The  revolu- 
tion of  1258  finally  put  an  end  to  the  taxation  for  the  war 
in  Sicily.103 

Burton  and  Dunstable  give  this  under  the  year  1256,  which  is   a 
mistake  (Ramsay,  Dawn  of  the  Constitution,  p.  163,  note). 
»8  Burton,  pp.  388-389. 

99  Burton,  p.  402;  52,000  marks,  Matthew  Paris,  V,  623-624,  637. 
Ramsay,  p.  163,  thinks  that  it  was  never  paid. 

100  Matthew  Paris,  V,  637 ;   "per  totam  Angliam  exactum   fuerat 
soccagium"    (Theok.,  p.   159).     Matthew   Paris   says   that  the   king 
promised  to  redress  grievances  of  the  church.    The  articles  containing 
them  are  given  in  VI,  353.     Mention  of  the  grievances  which  were 
to  be  discussed  at  a  convocation  on  August  22  is  made  in  Burton, 
pp.  401-408;  Wint.,  p.  96. 

101  April  2,  Matthew  Paris,  V,  673,  676,  680,  682,  688;  "quinzaine  of 
Easter,"  that  is,  March  31  (Cal.  Pat.  Rolls,  II,  626);  Dunst.,  p.  208; 
Bliss,  I,  354;  Rymer,  I,  370. 

102  Matthew  Paris,  V,  682-687;  Cal.  Pat.  Rolls,  II,  631,  634;  Oesta 
Abbatum,  I,  373-379. 

103  The  king  ceased  to  ask  for  a  subsidy,  but  the  pope  continued 
to  send  men  to  collect  all  arrears  of  tenths,  twentieths,  remission  of 

278 


UNDER  JOHN  AND  HENRY  III 

The  receipts  of  the  tenth  could  not  come  in  fast  enough 
to  satisfy  the  papal  demands.  It  was  necessary  to  borrow 
money.  By  1256,  merchants  of  Siena  had  advanced 
41,000  marks  which  were  to  be  repaid  out  of  the  tenth.104 
In  June,  1256,  the  king  gave  power  to  borrow  10,000 
marks  to  envoys  who  were  going  to  Rome.105  In  June, 
1257,  the  queen  and  prince  Edward  went  security  for  a 
loan  of  10,000  marks  which  was  to  be  made  by  Italian 
merchants,106  while  at  the  same  time  orders  were  being 
issued  to  forward  20,000  marks  of  the  tenth  to  Rome.101 
One  of  the  devices  employed  for  raising  money  quickly 
was  that  begun  by  Innocent  IV  and  with  which  the  bishop 
of  Hereford  was  later  so  closely  identified.  Sums  were 
borrowed  and  religious  houses  were  pledged  to  repay 
them.105  The  clergy  resisted  this  vigorously.  In  October, 
1255,  and  January,  1256,  the  king  was  unable  to  get  them 
to  accept  these  bills  drawn  on  them  without  their  knowl- 
edge and  consent.  They  appealed  to  the  pope,  who 
ordered  them  to  pay,  but  agreed  that  the  money  should 
be  counted  as  part  of  their  tenth.  Houses  which  resisted 
were  excommunicated  and  put  under  an  interdict  and  the 
clergy  were  finally  obliged  to  yield.109  The  amount  which 
was  borrowed  and  secured  in  this  way  was  estimated  by 

crusaders'  vows,  etc.     After  a  time  the  government  seems  to  have 
opposed  this  (Cat.  Pat.  Rolls,  III,  8,  9;  Bliss,  I,  383,  385). 

104  Shirley,  II,  115;  Cal.  Pat.  Rolls,  II,  519. 

105  Col.   Pat.   Rolls,   II,  481;   a   notice   of   a   loan   of   2,000   marks 
actually  made  on  this  authority  (ibid.,  II,  520). 

ice  Ibid.,  p.  562. 

107  Ibid.,  p.  563. 

losRymer,  I,  301;  Bliss,  I,  316;  Matthew  Paris,  V,  510-513. 

109  Matthew  Paris,  V,  522,  523,  525-527.  532,  533,  539-540,  552,  558, 
581-584;  VI,  305,  307,  315;  Gerv.  Cant.,  II,  205;  Osney,  pp.  107-112; 
Dunst.,  p.  199;  Cont.  Flor.  Wig.,  II,  185;  Oesta  Abbatum,  I,  379-384; 
Shirley,  II,  115;  Cal.  Pat.  Rolls,  II,  515,  557,  558,  651;  Memorials  of 
8.  Edmunds  Abbey,  III,  29-30.  No  house  was  to  pay  more  than  its 
tenth  for  five  years  would  amount  to  (Matthew  Paris,  VI,  315-317, 
323,  350,  382). 

279 


STUDIES  IN  TAXATION 

the  king  in  1256  to  amount  to  30,000  marks  besides  5,000 
marks  "damna  et  expensas."110  In  the  Patent  Roll  there 
are  fifty-eight  houses  which  went  security  for  about 
20,000  marks.111 

One  cause  of  the  opposition  to  the  tenth  was  the  belief 
that  the  king  was  not  sincere  in  his  promise  to  lead  a 
crusade  but  intended  to  spend  the  proceeds  of  the  tax 
in  other  ways.112  The  pope  however  had  no  intention  of 
allowing  it  to  be  spent  for  any  other  purpose  than  the 
crusade.113  With  the  entrance  of  the  king  into  the  Sicilian 
affair,  the  papal  attitude  changed  somewhat.  The  tenth 
was  conceded  for  two  years  more,  probably  in  the  expecta- 
tion that  the  extra  sum  would  be  used  in  Sicily,114  but  the 
king  was  not  yet  released  from  the  crusade  to  Palestine.118 
In  the  autumn  of  1254,  Henry  III  was  already  promising 
to  pay  debts  incurred  at  Rome  out  of  the  proceeds  of  the 
tenth.116  It  must  have  become  evident  to  the  pope  that 
the  king  could  not  fulfill  his  contract  for  the  Sicilian 
crown  and  carry  on  the  crusade  at  the  same  time.  At 
any  rate,  in  May,  1255,  Alexander  IV  commuted  the 
king's  vow  as  a  crusader  into  a  vow  to  invade  Sicily  and 
sent  Rostand  to  England  to  take  charge  of  the  collection 
of  the  tenth.117  As  far  as  the  evidence  of  the  Patent  Rolls 
goes  to  show,  all  the  receipts  from  the  tax  were  sent  to 

no  Shirley,  II,  115. 

in  Cal.  Pat.  Rolls,  above. 

112  Matthew  Paris,  V,  282,  327;  in  1252,  the  clergy  stated  that  if 
they  granted  the  tenth  "utiliter  distribuenda  .  .  .  prout  fidelibus  suis 
cautius  solito  videbitur  expedire"  (ibid.,  p.  328).  When  the  tax  was 
granted,  the  chronicler  states  that  it  was  "per  visum  magnatum  in 
viaticum  distribuenda"  (ibid.,  p.  375). 

us  See  above,  p.  271,  note  73. 

11*  See  above,  p.  274. 

us  Rymer,  I,  304,  308,  316. 

no  Cal.  Pat.  Rolls,  II,  344,  358. 

ii7  See  above,  p.  275.  Probably  the  change  in  the  king's  vow  was 
made  at  this  time  because  it  was  when  the  final  arrangements  for 
the  bestowal  of  Sicily  on  Edmund  were  made. 

280 


UNDER  JOHN  AND  HENRY  III 

Italy  or  paid  to  merchants  for  loans  made  to  the  pope.118 
In  April,  1257,  the  king  forbade  Rostand  to  make  any 
payments  to  any  one  in  connection  with  the  realm  of 
Sicily,119  probably  to  induce  the  pope  to  modify  the  con- 
ditions of  the  Sicilian  grant.120  To  this  policy,  Henry  III 
did  not  adhere,  for  in  June  he  was  trying  to  borrow  money 
to  use  at  Rome,  and  Rostand,  who  was  leaving  England, 
appointed  a  clerk  to  receive  in  his  absence  the  tenth  and 
all  other  money  of  the  cross.121  Thus  while  the  receipts 
from  the  tax  must  have  been  large,  the  king  was  able  to 
use  very  little  of  it  for  his  government  in  England  except 
in  the  shape  of  loans  which  he  had  to  repay.  In  1256, 
2,000  marks  of  the  tenth  were  paid  him  and  he  promised 

us  "mandamus  quatenus  vos  vel  alter  vestrum  omnem  pecuniam 
...  ex  quacumque  causa  Terrae  Sanctae  deputatam  .  .  .  integre  recip- 
ere,  ac  eidem  regi  pro  executione  negotii  regni  Ciciliae  assignare 
curetis"  (letter  of  the  pope  to  the  archbishop  of  Canterbury  and 
Rostand,  1255,  Burton,  p.  351);  "pecuniam  Terrae  Sanctae  .  .  .  nulli 
alii  quam  nobis  assignetis,  nisi  etiam  de  speciali  mandate  magistri 
Rostandi"  (letter  of  the  collector,  William  de  Ros,  to  certain  arch- 
deacons) (ibid.,  p.  356)  ;  the  abbot  of  Westminster  paid  £1,755  17s  8d 
and  other  sums  to  merchants  of  Siena  by  order  of  Rostand  and  was 
to  turn  over  to  him  the  rest  of  the  tenth  which  he  had  if  any  were 
left  (Cal.  Pat.  Rolls,  II,  462);  the  bishop  of  Norwich  paid  5,500 
marks  of  the  tenth  to  merchants  of  Siena  by  Rostand's  orders 
(ibid.,  II,  508) ;  similar  payments  (ibid.,  p.  514) ;  in  October,  1256, 
the  pope  granted  the  king  a  delay  for  fulfilling  the  conditions  of 
the  Sicilian  affair  till  June  1,  1257,  "provided  that  the  tithe  of 
church  revenue  as  granted  to  the  king  be  paid  over  to  merchants  for 
paying  the  debts  of  the  Roman  church"  (Bliss,  I,  338);  in  June,  1257, 
20,000  marks  were  to  be  delivered  to  Florentine  merchants  to  be 
carried  to  Rome;  this  was  done  by  the  advice  of  the  king's  council, 
one  of  whom  was  Rostand  (Cal.  Pat.  Rolls,  II,  563)  ;  "it  has  been 
provided  by  the  council  that  the  money  of  the  cross  and  of  the 
tenth  .  .  .  shall  be  deposited  with  certain  merchants"  (ibid.,  p.  605; 
see  also  pp.  566,  587);  in  1258,  the  king  is  said  to  have  sent  the 
pope  5,000  marks  (Matthew  Paris,  V,  666). 

us  Cal.  Pat.  Rolls,  II,  566. 

i2o/6id.,  567. 

121  Ibid.,  562,  566.  The  king  also  sent  money  after  this  (see  above, 
note  118). 

281 


STUDIES  IN  TAXATION 

to  repay  the  money  out  of  the  income  of  church  lands  in 
hand.122  For  another  loan  of  1,300  marks,  he  pledged 
the  gold  in  his  treasury.123  He  was  throughout  this  period 
short  of  money.  In  1255  he  borrowed  1,000  marks  from 
the  bishop  of  Durham,  and  to  repay  it  assigned  to  the 
bishop  the  issues  of  the  archbishopric  of  York  and  of 
Yorkshire.124  In  February,  1256,  a  loan  of  800  or  1,000 
marks  was  to  be  raised  on  the  security  of  certain  church 
lands  which  were  in  hand.126  William  de  Valence  lent  the 
king  1,100  marks  in  November,  1257.126  Merchants  of 
Siena  lent  £550  in  May,  1258,  on  security  of  the  royal 
jewels.127  The  same  year,  2,250  marks  were  lent  by 
Italians,  secured  by  the  abbot  of  Westminster,  who  was 
in  turn  secured  by  the  pledge  of  the  king's  jewels.128  In 
November,  1256,  the  king  delivered  to  his  brother,  the 
earl  of  Cornwall,  1,207  marks  of  gold,  pledged  to  the 
latter  for  a  loan  of  10,000  marks  of  silver  made  to  the 
king  during  the  last  campaign  in  Gascony.  This  trans- 
action shows  the  poverty  of  the  exchequer.125  The  same 
year,  Henry  III  declared  that  he  had  no  ready  money  to 
buy  goods  at  the  Boston  fair,  except  the  fines  and  amerce- 
ments in  the  eyres  of  the  northern  counties,  though  all 
that  he  wanted  was  700  marks.180  In  1257,  the  treasurer 
was  ordered  to  sell  wood  to  raise  three  or  four  thousand 
marks.181 

Templars,  Hospitallers,  and  Cistercians  were  exempt 

122  Cal  Pat.  Rolls,  II,  480. 

123  Ibid.,  498,  500. 
12*  Ibid.,  423,  448. 
128  Ibid.,  461. 

126 /bid.,  603. 

127  Ibid.,  629. 

128  This  was  to  pay  the  pope's  tribute  for  two  years,  2,000  marks, 
with  250  marks  profit  for  the  merchants  (ibid.,  631,  634). 

i2»  Ibid.,  528. 
iso  Ibid.,  483. 
isi  Ibid.,  544,  550. 

282 


UNDER  JOHN  AND  HENRY  III 

from  the  tenth  unless  they  held  churches  as  private  per- 
sons.132 Efforts  were  made  to  extend  the  levy  to  all  the 
property  of  the  Cistercians,  but  the  latter  were  finally 
excused  by  the  pope.133 

After  Henry  Ill's  return  from  Gascony  in  1255,  a 
tallage  was  levied.134  Most  of  the  towns  compounded. 
The  assessment  was  made  usually,  perhaps  always,  by 
royal  judges,  sometimes  aided  by  the  sheriff.135  A  con- 
troversy arose  between  the  king  and  the  citizens  of  London 
concerning  the  character  of  the  contribution  which  the 
city  should  pay;  the  dispute  illustrates  the  fact  that 
tallage  was  still  levied  per  capita.  The  exchequer 
demanded  3,000  marks  as  a  tallage  from  London.  The 
Londoners  refused  to  pay  this  amount,  offering  instead 
2,000  marks  as  an  aid  and  declaring  that  they  were  not 
liable  for  tallage.  The  king  then  ordered  that  the  city 
should  be  tallaged  per  capita,  but  the  justices  could  not 
carry  out  these  orders.  In  February,  1256,  the  citizens 
appeared  before  the  king  to  settle  the  matter.  An  exami- 
nation of  the  records  showed  that  the  Londoners  had 
been  paying  tallages,  not  aids,  and  the  citizens  then 
admitted  that  they  could  be  tallaged  and  were  charged 
with  3,000  marks.136  The  amount  of  the  tallage  in  twenty- 
eight  counties  was  about  8,500  marks.131 

132  Cal.  Pat.  Rolls,  II,  524;  Matthew  Paris,  V,  553,  555,  610,  637; 
Wav.,  p.  348. 
iss  Rymer,  I,  323. 
i34Madox,  I,  712,  n.  a. 

135  in  Norfolk,  the  tallage  was  assessed  by  William  Brito,  a  justice 
in  eyre  in  1255,  and  by  the  sheriff  (Cal.  Pat.  Rolls,  II,  436;  Pipe  Roll, 
39  Henry  III,  Norf.  and  Suff.);  in  Notts,  and  Derby,  by  William 
Trussel  and  Roger  de  Whytcestre,  who  were  justices  in  eyre  in  1255 
(Cal.  Pat.  Rolls,  II,  436;  Pipe  Roll,  above,  Notts,  and  Derby). 

136  Madox,  I,  712,  n.  a;  Exch.  K.  R.  Mem.  Roll,  39  Henry  III,  m. 
9  d;  Close  Rolls,  No.  69,  m.  20  d.    For  a  discussion  of  this  tallage  on 
London,  see  Adams,  E.  H.  R.,  XXIV,  490,  who  shows  that  the  point 
at  issue  between  the  king  and  the  citizens  was  whether  they  owed  aid 
or  tallage  and  that  the  latter  had  to  admit  that  they  owed  tallage.    In 

283 


STUDIES  IN  TAXATION 

Throughout  1256  and  1257,  there  had  been  fighting 
on  the  Welsh  frontier.  In  1257,  the  host  was  summoned 
to  meet  on  August  1  at  Chester  and  a  brief  campaign  in 
Wales  followed.138  Tenants  were  summoned  to  come  with 
part  only  of  their  quotas.138  An  excuse  (e.g.  sickness, 
old  age)  was  still  necessary  to  exempt  from  personal 
service  any  tenant,  great  or  small.140  There  is  some 
evidence  that  it  was  still  difficult  to  exact  service  from 
rear-vassals.141  Toward  the  close  of  the  campaign,  it 
was  determined  to  levy  a  scutage  at  three  marks  per 
fee.142  From  some  tenants,  both  clerical  and  lay,  the  king 

the  citation  from  the  Memoranda  Roll  as  given  by  Madox,  four  cases 
were  found  when  they  searched  the  rolls,  in  which  the  citizens  had 
been  tallaged,  viz.,  in  1214,  1223,  1242,  and  1253.  Both  the  Memoranda 
Roll  itself  and  the  Close  Roll  give  two  more  cases:  "et  anno  ejusdem 
xxix  talliati  fuerunt  ad  duo  millia  marcarum,  et  anno  ejusdem  xxxiii 
ad  mille  libras"  (above).  Three  cases  at  least  do  not  appear  in  the 
record  of  this  dispute  as  having  been  cited:  the  tallage  on  London 
of  1226,  which  was  levied  per  capita,  the  tallage  in  1230  of  1,000m 
"de  auxilio  promisso  regi  ad  primam  transfretationem,"  and  the  tal- 
lage of  1235  (see  above,  pp.  172,  190,  213).  That  the  method  of 
levying  tallage  was  still  either  "per  capita,"  or  "in  communi"  is  also 
shown  by  the  following:  "ad  assidendum  tallagium  nostrum  in 
civitatibus,  etc.,  separatim  per  capita  vel  in  communi"  (Close  Rolls, 
39  Henry  III,  m.  19  d). 

is?  Pipe  Roll,  39,  40,  41  Henry  III.  For  other  references  to  this 
tallage,  see  Madox,  I,  356,  n.  z;  726,  n.  I;  another  case  of  tallage  per 
capita,  740,  n.  d;  II,  232,  n.  i;  Excerpta,  II,  211;  Rot.  Orig.,  I,  15; 
Cat.  Pat.  Rolls,  II,  404.  Matthew  Paris,  V,  568,  says  that  the  Lon- 
doners were  tallaged  in  500m  in  1256  "et  ut  color  causae  variatus  est, 
nunc  ad  opus  regis,  nunc  ad  opus  reginae,  expectantes  ad  opus 
Edwardi,  quasi  servi  ultimae  conditionis,  etc."  The  Jews  were  bound 
to  pay  the  earl  of  Cornwall  8,000  marks  (Cal.  Pat.  Rolls,  II,  400) ; 
Rymer,  I,  315. 

iss  Close  Rolls,  41  Henry  III,  m.  6  d;  Rymer,  I,  361 ;  Matthew  Paris, 
V,  639,  645-647,  649;  Theok.,  p.  158;  Dunst.,  p.  203.  The  king  was 
at  Chester  till  August  17,  when  he  went  into  Wales,  and  was  again 
at  Chester  on  September  12  (Cal  Pat.  Rolls,  II,  573-577).  Men 
were  on  the  king's  service  in  Wales  at  different  times  all  summer 
(ibid.,  pp.  586,  595-598). 

139  The  following  cases  show  that  only  part  of  the  tenant's  service 
was  summoned.  The  amount  of  service  owed  is  taken  from  the  Pipe 

284 


UNDER  JOHN  AND  HENRY  III 


Knights 

Service 

summoned            County 

41 

4        Dors,  and  Somers. 

10 

2        Dors,  and  Somers. 

20 

2        Dors,  and  Somers. 

15 

1        Dors,  and  Somers. 

3 

2        Dors,  and  Somers. 

24 

2        Dors,  and  Somers. 

11 

2        Dors,  and  Somers. 

92 

3        Devon. 

30 

4        York. 

50 

5         Staff. 

10 

4        Essex  and  Hert. 

1 

1        Oxford. 

1 

1         Berks. 

1 

1        Wilts. 

1% 

2        Oxford 

15 

2        Notts,  and  Derby. 

Roll  of  42  Henry  III,  in  the  account  of  the  scutage.  Fractions  are 
omitted.  The  service  summoned  is  given  in  the  Close  Rolls,  41  Henry 
III,  m.  6  d;  Rymer,  I,  361;  Lords'  Report  on  the  Dignity  of  a  Peer, 
III,  App.,  I,  p.  14. 


Roger  de  Mohun    ... 
Philip  de  Columbariis 
Hugh  de  Nevill      ... 
Henry  de  Novo  Burgo 
William  de  Kaynes 
Aluredus  de  Lincoln 
Hugh  de  Vivoniis  .         .         . 
John  de  Curtenay  ... 
Henry  de  Percy     ... 
Roger  de  Sumery  ... 
Robert  de  Brus     ... 
Jordan  de  Saukvill 
Peter    Achard          ... 
Reginald    (Roger)   de  Pavilly 
Almaricus  de  S.  Amando         . 
Ralph  Musard         ... 

From  this  list  we  see  that  some  tenants  were  expected  to  perform 
full  service.  The  abbot  of  St.  Albans,  6  fees,  sent  two  knights  and 
eight  sergeants  (=  four  knights)  (Matthew  Paris,  VI,  373-374). 

140  "\v.    de    Fortibus    comes    Albemarl'    qui    propter    infirmitatem 
suam  illi  exercitui  interesse  non  potuit  et  habuit  milites  etc.  et  habet 
scutagium"  (Scutage  Rolls,  no.  8)  ;  other  cases  are  given  in  this  roll. 

141  The  abbot  of  St.  Albans  summoned  his  knights  to  serve.     On 
this  barony,  it  was  the  custom  for  the  tenants  by  military  service 
to  assemble  and  choose  six  representatives,  the  others  contributing 
to  their  support  in  the  army.     But  the  abbot  was  unable  to  force 
his  tenants  to  serve  and  had  himself  to  provide  the  service  of  his 
fee  (Matthew  Paris,  VI,  374-376).    The  abbess  of  Wilton  was  unable 
to  distrain  her  knights  to  serve,  "quod  milites  vestros  ad  sua  servicia 
facienda  distringere  non  valetis"  (Close  Rolls,  41  Henry  III,  m.  4  d). 

142  On  September  14,  the  king  granted  Philip  Basset  his  scutage 
"quia  per  commune  consilium  comitum,  baronum,  et  aliorum  magna- 
tum  nobiscum  in  Wallia  nuper  existentium  provisum  est  quod  habeant 
scutagium  suum";   in   a   similar  writ  dated   September  25,   the   last 
expression  runs:  "provisum  est  quod  nos  et  ipsi  qui  servicium  nobis 
fecerunt   in   Wallia  habeamus   scutagium   nostrum"    (Scutage    Rolls, 
no.  8,  m.  1);  Dunst.,  p.  207;   Theok.,  p.   158;   Madox,   II,  70,  n.  g. 
That  the  levy  was  not  put  in  charge  before  the  campaign  is  shown 
by  two  entries:  one  showing  that  on  July  18,  the  king  remitted  to  his 

285 


STUDIES  IN  TAXATION 

took  a  fine  or  aid  which  was  greater  than  their  scutage.143 
Rear-vassals  were  asked  to  grant  their  lords  an  aid  to 
help  pay  the  fine.144  A  tenant  who  performed  his  service, 
even  when  he  furnished  only  part  of  the  quota  due  from 
him,  was  allowed  to  collect  scutage  from  his  vassals  with 
the  king's  permission.14*  The  incidence  of  the  levy  did 
not  stop  with  the  immediate  vassal  of  the  tenant  in  chief.14* 

brother,  Richard,  all  his  service  for  this  army,  "and  if  a  scutage  be 
levied  for  the  said  army,  the  king  grants,  etc."  (Cal.  Pat.  Rolls,  II, 
571)  ;  the  other  that  of  the  bishop  of  Bath  (ibid.,  p.  564). 

1*3  "De  hiis  qui  fecerunt  finem  pro  servicio  suo  et  pro  scutagio 
habendo";  "Abbas  de  Abbindon'  similiter  finem  fecit  cum  rege  pro 
servicio  suo  quod  regi  debet  et  pro  scutagio  suo  habendo"  (Scutage 
Rolls,  no.  8) ;  sometimes  a  tenant  paid  part  fine  and  performed  part 
of  his  service:  Ralph  Basset  "tarn  per  finem  quam  per  servicium 
suum  satisfecit  regi  pro  scutagio  suo  habendo"  (ibid.).  These  fines 
do  not  ordinarily  appear  in  the  Pipe  Roll,  but  there  are  some  entries: 
"Abbas  de  Burgo  debet  c  et  xx  li.  de  Ix  feodis  sed  non  debet  inde 
summoneri  per  finem  cc  marcarum  inde  factam  sicut  continetur  in 
rotulo  principali";  William  de  Dyva  20m  fine  "pro  exercitu  Walliae 
sicut  continetur  in  rotulo  de  eisdem  finibus"  (Pipe  Roll,  42  Henry 
III,  Northamp.,  Oxf.,  m.  9  d,  18  d).  In  the  Patent  Roll,  the  pay- 
ment over  and  above  the  scutage  is  called  an  aid:  "the  king  ...  is 
requiring  from  their  lord  a  competent  aid  beyond  the  service  due 
from  him"  (Cal.  Pat.  Rolls,  II,  599,  600). 

144  Cal.  Pat.  Rolls,  above. 

145  Scutage  Rolls,  no.  8 ;  the  tenants,  cited  in  note  139,  who  were 
summoned  with  part  of  their  service   received  writs   of  quittance. 
Some  of  them  fined  instead  of  serving,  e.g.  Peter  Achard  and  Ralph 
Musard  (ibid.). 

146  Thomas  de  Whereweton,  a  rear-vassal,  paid  scutage  to  his  lords 
and  was  allowed  to  collect  it  from  his  tenants   (Cal.  Pat.  Rolls,  II, 
666). 

This  is  the  account  of  the  scutage:  Scutage  at  £2. 

£  s  d 

Clerical  tenants 451  13  4 

Forty-six  lay  tenants  (each  5  or  more  fees)  .     2004  17  6 

Other  lay  tenants  (each  fewer  than  5  fees,  etc.)    670  10  2 

Four  clerical  tenants  who  fined      .         .  280      0  0  (89  fees) 

Sergeants 13  18  0 

Total 3420  19  0 

Paid,  1258,  1259 272      4  6 

Fees  taxed,  about,  1600. 

286 


UNDER  JOHN  AND  HENRY  III 

Among  the  46  greater  lay  tenants  the  following  are  reckoned  as 
one  tenant  each:  the  honors  of  Henry  de  Essex  (£113  4s),  Hagenet 
(£100)  and  an  entry  of  £63  for  the  honor  of  Peverel  in  Essex  and 
Hertford.  Five  more  of  these  tenants  hold  of  the  honor  of  Boulogne. 
Of  the  sum  charged  against  the  lesser  tenants,  £211  are  on  the  honors 
of  Boulogne  and  Peverel,  leaving  about  £460  charged  against  tenants 
in  chief.  A  charge  of  £13  18s  against  sergeants  should  also  be 
noticed.  The  account  that  I  have  of  the  scutage  of  this  year  is 
incomplete,  for  I  failed  to  copy  from  the  Pipe  Roll  the  scutage  in 
the  following  counties:  Salop,  Stafford,  Gloucester,  Lancashire,  and 
London  and  Middlesex. 


287 


CHAPTER  IX 

THE  END  OF  THE  REIGN 

AFTER  1258,  there  was  a  lull  in  the  struggle  over 
taxation.  The  power  of  the  barons  in  the  govern- 
ment was  reflected  in  the  cessation  of  demands  for  aid 
from  them.  None  was  asked  for  till  1269,  when  a  twen- 
tieth was  granted  for  the  crusade.  Thus  the  king  suc- 
ceeded in  obtaining  at  that  time  what  he  had  failed  to 
get  in  1253  from  the  tenants  in  chief.  It  is  likely  that 
his  success  was  due  to  the  belief  that  he  really  did  intend 
to  use  the  money  for  the  crusade.  The  clergy  however 
demanded  that  the  twentieth  should  be  held  in  deposit  till 
Henry  III  or  his  son  departed.  Without  doubt,  the 
barons  were  influenced  to  grant  the  twentieth  by  the  fact 
that  Henry  III  had  levied  no  tax  on  property  since  1237, 
and  thus  had  convinced  them  that  there  was  no  danger 
of  his  establishing  the  right  to  tax  them  at  will.  The 
method  of  assessment  and  collection  resembles  that 
employed  in  the  early  part  of  the  reign.  To  say  that 
the  council  granted  the  twentieth  does  not  accurately 
describe  the  issue  of  this  tax.  The  military  tenants 
agreed  to  it;  then  the  bishops  conceded  it  on  their 
demesnes;  later  the  beneficed  clergy  consented  to  it;  the 
towns  paid  a  tallage.  This  division  of  the  levy  suggests 
that  each  part  of  the  community  granted  its  own  tax  and 
that  the  council  of  military  tenants  in  chief  represented 
only  those  who  held  by  knights'  service. 

The  chief  feature  of  this  period  was  the  taxation  of 
the  clergy.  Following  the  precedent  established  before 
the  revolution  of  1258,  they  were  taxed  four- tenths  and 

288 


UNDER  JOHN  AND  HENRY  III 

a  twentieth.  In  each  case,  the  pope  or  his  legate  assented 
to  or  requested  it,  but  the  consent  of  the  English  clergy 
was  also  requisite.  Generally  the  levy  was  made  on  the 
basis  of  the  assessment  of  1254,  though  not  always.  The 
assessment  and  collection  were  usually  in  the  hands  of  the 
clergy.  Composition  was  often  allowed.  Thus  the  clergy 
granted  the  tax,  and  in  the  main  assessed  and  collected 
it,  and  in  a  measure  tried  to  supervise  the  expenditure. 
Two  tallages  were  taken  and  a  donum  on  religious  bodies, 
and  there  was  also  papal  taxation  of  the  clergy. 

In  1260,  a  tallage  was  levied.  The  kingdom  was  divided 
into  districts,  each  embracing  several  counties.  Two 
commissioners  were  sent  to  each  district  to  assess  the 
tallage,  except  in  London  and  Middlesex,  where  the  assess- 
ment was  made  by  the  justiciar,  Hugh  Bigod.  The 
assessors  delivered  a  copy  of  their  roll  to  the  sheriff  who 
collected  the  money.  They  could  at  their  discretion 
allow  a  city  to  compound  in  a  lump  sum,  or  they  could 
assess  it  per  capita,  and  they  were  to  see  that  the  rich 
did  not  shift  the  burden  of  the  tax  onto  the  poor.  The 
writs  of  assessment  were  sent  out  in  June  and  the  tallage 
was  to  be  paid  at  the  exchequer,  half  on  November  1  and 
half  at  the  Easter  following.1  A  contribution  was  also 
asked  from  the  moneyers,  who  protested  that  they  were 
not  accustomed  to  pay  a  tallage.  They  finally  agreed  to 

iRot.  Orig.,  I,  16b;  Vincent,  p.  110;  Cal.  Pat.  Rolls,  III,  75-76. 
Royal  officials  were  appointed  as  assessors.  Geoffrey  de  Leuknor 
was  in  1262  appointed  justice  in  eyre  (ibid.,  p.  200);  William  de 
Hecham  and  William  de  Engleby  were  in  1260  appointed  to  view 
the  sale  of  wines  in  certain  counties  (ibid.,  pp.  66,  67),  and  in  the 
same  year  the  former  was  to  hold  an  inquest  into  the  seizure  of  a 
ship  (ibid.,  p.  103) ;  Robert  de  Crepping  was  in  1259  appointed 
keeper  of  the  lands  of  William  de  Valence  (ibid.,  pp.  15,  22,  35)  ; 
Hugh  Bigod  was  justiciar.  The  sheriff  of  one  of  the  counties  in 
the  district  might  be  a  tallager,  e.g.  Hamo  Hauteyn,  sheriff  of  Lin- 
coln, and  Robert  de  Meisy,  sheriff  of  Hereford,  helped  to  tallage  their 
counties. 

289 


STUDIES  IN  TAXATION 

pay  200  marks  on  condition  that  their  liberties  were 
confirmed.2 

In  1262,  the  pope  asked  the  prelates  individually  to 
make  him  an  aid  for  the  business  of  Sicily,  and  he  followed 
it  up  the  next  year  with  an  order  to  the  clergy  to  pay 
a  hundredth  of  church  revenues  for  five  years  for  the 
Holy  Land.3 

In  the  summer  of  1264,  after  the  battle  of  Lewes,  there 
was  danger  of  an  invasion  by  the  king's  continental 
friends.4  Great  preparations  for  resistance  were  made. 
The  sea  was  guarded  and  all  the  ports  except  Dover 
closed.  The  tenants  by  military  service  were  summoned 
to  arms  in  August.  In  addition,  each  vill,  city,  and 
borough  was  to  furnish  a  quota  of  armed  men.5  By 
decision  of  the  bishops,  religious  orders  and  the  beneficed 
clergy  were  either  to  pay  a  subsidy  or  to  furnish  armed 
men.6  At  some  time  before  September  4,  the  prelates 
granted  a  tenth  for  one  year  of  ecclesiastical  goods. 
Each  bishop  collected  it  in  his  diocese ;  it  was  to  be  levied 

2  Cal.  Pat.  Rolls,  III,  89. 

s  Bliss,  I,  379,  382,  383,  394.  One  chronicler  states  that  in  1259  a 
thirtieth  of  all  ecclesiastical  revenues  was  to  be  collected  and  paid 
to  the  bishops  of  Bath,  Ely,  and  Rochester,  together  with  arrears 
of  tenths  and  other  past  contributions,  to  make  up  the  sum  of  5,500 
marks.  To  this  amount  these  bishops  had  gone  security  to  the  pope 
for  the  king  to  enable  him  to  avoid  excommunication  and  an  interdict 
(Flores  Historiarum,  ed.  Luard,  Rolls  Series,  II,  433;  III,  349-354). 
In  December,  1257,  the  pope  suspended  these  penalties  for  a  time 
(Bliss,  I,  354)  ;  Matthew  Paris  says,  V,  666,  that  the  pope  threatened 
an  interdict  and  excommunication,  which  the  king  avoided  by  sending 
him  5,000  marks;  the  pope  in  a  letter  of  December,  1257,  speaks  of 
5,500  marks  to  be  paid  to  these  three  bishops  (Rymer,  I,  368). 

*Cal.  Pat.  Rolls,  III,  338;  Shirley,  II,  257-273. 

s  Cal.  Pat.  Rolls,  III,  340,  341,  349,  351,  352,  354-368;  Shirley,  II, 
259,  269,  271;  Cont.  Flor.  Wig.,  II,  192;  Lib.  de  Ant.  Leg.,  pp.  67-69. 

8  Cal.  Pat.  Rolls,  III,  365.  This  payment  was  probably  the  tenth 
spoken  of  below,  although  Dunstable  sent  four  horsemen  and  six  foot- 
men and  also  paid  the  tenth  (Dunst.,  p.  233);  Shirley,  II,  273; 
Chronicon  Willelmi  de  Rishanger  (Camden  Society),  p.  35. 

290 


UNDER  JOHN  AND  HENRY  III 

secundum  communem  cestimationem  of  the  revenues.7  As 
an  instance  of  the  despotic  power  of  Simon  may  be  cited 
the  order  which  he  issued  in  September  to  the  bishops  to 
pay  the  tax  at  once,  or  the  sheriffs  would  collect  it.8  As 
soon  as  the  pope  heard  of  the  levy,  he  commanded  the 
bishops  to  turn  the  receipts  over  to  his  legate,  Ottobon.9 
The  death  and  overthrow  of  Simon  did  not  cause  the 
cessation  of  the  tax.  It  was  still  collected  and  the  pope 
ordered  it  to  be  delivered  to  the  king.10 

The  restoration  of  Henry  III  to  power  in  1265  was 
attended  by  fines  on  those  who  had  been  partisans  of  the 
earl  of  Leicester,  especially  the  towns.  London  paid 
20,000  marks,  Oxford  500  marks,  Hereford  600  marks, 
and  Lincoln  1,000  marks.11  Some  prelates  paid  fines.12 

THE  TENTH,  126613 

The  expenses  of  the  war  and  the  disorder  of  the  king- 
dom made  new  taxation  necessary.  The  pope's  tribute 
had  not  been  paid  in  five  years.14  Clement  IV  was  asked 
to  aid  the  king  from  the  revenues  of  the  English  church 

T  Cal.  Pat.  Rolls,  III,  345,  346,  568;  Dunst.,  p.  233;  Lib.  de  Ant. 
Leg.,  p.  69;  Wykes,  p.  155;  Flores  Hist.,  II,  499;  Rymer,  I,  445; 
Bliss,  I,  432;  Chron.  Will,  de  Rishanger,  p.  36;  Lords'  Report  on 
the  Dignity  of  a  Peer,  Vol.  Ill,  App.  I,  p.  32. 

s  Rymer,  I,  445. 

» Ibid.,  I,  459;  Bliss,  I,  432. 

10  Rymer,  I,  462. 

ii-Lifc.  de  Ant.  Leg.,  p.  80;  Cal.  Pat.  Rolls,  III,  530,  548,  554,  567, 
576;  ibid.  (Record  Com.),  p.  40b;  Annales  Londonienses  (ed.  Stubbs), 
p.  70. 

^Cont.  Flor.  Wig.,  II,  194;  the  bishop  of  Lincoln,  500  marks 
"whereby  he  made  a  fine  with  the  king  for  not  having  done  his 
service  that  time";  he  paid  £100  and  the  rest  of  the  fine  was  par- 
doned (Cal.  Pat.  Rolls,  III,  333);  the  bishop  of  Winchester,  600 
marks  (ibid.,  342). 

is  The  volume  of  Calendar  of  the  Patent  Rolls,  1266-1272,  came  to 
hand  too  late  to  be  used  in  the  following  taxes. 

14  Ottobon  was  to  collect  the  5,000m  due  out  of  the  tenth  (Bliss,  I, 
423,  424).  This  was  not  done:  "de  solvendo  dementi  Papae  7,000m 

291 


and  in  1266  he  granted  a  tenth  of  the  spiritualities  and 
temporalities  of  the  clergy  for  three  years,  except  those 
of  certain  orders.  The  grant  was  confirmed  by  the  Eng- 
lish prelates  before  it  was  collected.15  At  the  meeting 
where  this  was  done,  the  king  tried  to  get  the  clergy  to 
consent  to  pay  a  larger  sum,  but  the  request  was  refused.16 
The  collection  was  in  charge  of  the  papal  legate,  Ottobon ; 
under  him  each  bishop  collected  it  in  his  diocese.17  The 
tenth  was  to  be  assessed  "according  to  the  true,  and  not 
according  to  the  old  valuation."18  But  the  valuation 
according  to  which  the  tax  of  the  first  year  was  levied 
seems  to  have  been  that  of  1254,  the  Norwich  assessment.19 
The  king  was  not  satisfied  with  this,  but  as  long  as  the 
legate  remained  in  England,  no  change  was  made.  Otto- 
bon departed,  however,  in  1268,  leaving  strict  orders  that 
the  tenth  was  not  to  be  assessed  or  collected  by  the  laity 
and  that  lay  force  should  not  be  employed  to  compel 
payment.20  Immediately,  royal  officers  were  sent  out  to 
make  a  new  assessment  by  means  of  juries  of  the  locality.21 

de  areragiis  annul  census,  1,000m  per  annum"  July,  1267  (Gal.  Pat. 
Rolls,  Record  Com.,  p.  40a;  Rymer,  I,  473). 

is  Gasquet,  Henry  III  and  the  Church,  p.  412;  Wig.,  p.  457;  Cotton, 
p.  141;  Wykes,  p.  212;  Osney,  p.  198;  Cont.  Flor.  Wig.,  II,  198; 
Wint.,  p.  104;  Wav.,  p.  371;  Gerv.  Cant,  II,  242;  Rymer,  I,  473; 
Bliss,  I,  432;  Annales  Lond.,  p.  80;  Chron.  Will,  de  Rishanger,  pp. 
61,  64. 

^Dunst.,  p.  244. 

IT  Gasquet,  p.  413;  see  letters  of  Ottobon  concerning  the  tenth 
(Raine,  Letters  from  Northern  Registers,  pp.  7,  13)  ;  Bliss,  I,  432. 

is  Bliss,  I,  432. 

i»  Graham,  E.  H.  R.,  XXIII,  438.  The  case  of  the  abbot  of  St. 
Edmunds  given  below  suggests,  though  it  does  not  state,  that  the 
assessment  which  was  used  at  first  was  that  of  the  bishop  of  Norwich. 

20  Wilkins,  Concilia,  II,  21.    Lay  force  should  not  compel  payment 
unless  ecclesiastical  penalties  failed,  and  the  initiative  in  its  employ- 
ment should  not  come  from  the  king,  but  from  the  clergy. 

21  "secundum  verum  valorem  .  .  .  per  aestimationem  plebeiorum  ad 
hoc  vocatorum"  (Cont.  Flor.  Wig.,  II,  202).    It  is  clear  that  this  was 
done  after  Ottobon's  departure.     In  July,  1268,  just  before  he  left, 

292 


UNDER  JOHN  AND  HENRY  III 

The  new  assessment  was  much  more  stringent  than  the 
old,  so  much  so  that  the  bishops  preferred  to  compound 
for  their  tenth.  The  abbot  of  St.  Edmunds  had  paid  his 
tenth  of  the  first  year,  but  to  avoid  the  new  assessment, 
he  paid  the  bishop  a  tenth  for  three  more  years,  calcu- 
lated on  the  Norwich  assessment,  on  the  property  which 
had  been  included  in  that  valuation.  That  assessment 
had  however  omitted  certain  property  of  the  abbot  on 
which  he  now  had  to  pay  the  tenth  for  the  two  remaining 
years  according  to  the  new  valuation  made  by  the  royal 
assessors.22  In  1269,  the  clergy  stated  that  in  some 
cases  the  new  assessment  had  raised  the  valuation  of  their 
property  from  ten  marks  in  1254  to  twenty-six  marks 
in  the  new  tenth  and  so  on  in  proportion.23 

the  legate  wrote  to  the  archbishop  of  York  that  the  tenth  was  not 
to  be  assessed  or  collected  by  the  laity  (Wilkins,  II,  21).  The 
Continuator  of  the  Flowers  of  Worcester  states  that  the  tenth  of 
the  first  year  had  already  been  paid  when  the  new  valuation  was 
made;  he  refers  to  the  assessors  as  "exactores  .  .  .  regales"  and  con- 
trasts them  with  the  "episcopales  exactores"  and  gives  the  date  of 
the  assessment  as  1268,  the  year  of  Ottobon's  departure  (Cont.  Flor. 
Wig.,  II,  202) ;  in  1269,  the  clergy  complained  that  the  tenth  was 
collected  by  the  laity  (Wilkins,  II,  19).  See  also  Cal.  Pat.  Rolls,  IV, 
247,  311,  313,  332,  352,  379,  380,  404. 

™  Cont.  Flor.  Wig.,  II,  202;  the  bishop  of  Winchester  paid  £3,000 
for  the  tenth  of  his  diocese  for  three  years  (Vincent,  p.  94,  citing 
Patent  Rolls,  54  Henry  III,  m.  11).  Probably  other  prelates  in  addi- 
tion to  the  abbot  of  St.  Edmunds  paid  the  tenth  for  four  years 
according  to  the  old  valuation  in  order  to  escape  the  new  assess- 
ment: "rex  .  .  .  tandem  extorsit,  ut  pro  recompensatione  veri  valoris 
non  percepti  per  triennium  decimam  quarti  anni  singuli  reddere 
cogerentur";  "per  quadriennalem  decimarum  extorsionem"  (Wykes, 
pp.  225,  227)  ;  in  1269,  the  king,  according  to  one  authority,  tried 
to  collect  the  tenth  for  a  fourth  year,  but  the  clergy  protested  (Cont. 
Flor.  Wig.,  II,  203)  ;  the  chronicler  may  however  refer  to  the  pay- 
ments described  in  this  note.  The  total  amount  of  composition  was 
about  40,000  marks  in  the  following  dioceses:  Worcester,  Bath,  Salis- 
bury, Winchester,  Norwich,  London,  Ely,  Lichfield,  Lincoln  (Cal. 
Pat.  Rolls,  IV,  247,  267,  269,  352,  354,  356,  359,  373,  417). 

23  Wilkins,  II,  19.  This  tenth  was  extended  to  Ireland  (Rymer,  I, 
485). 

293 


STUDIES  IN  TAXATION 

In  1268,  a  tallage  was  levied,24  assessed  by  royal  officials 
who  were  delegated  for  this  work  probably  by  the  exche- 
quer.25 As  usual,  towns  and  vills  either  compounded  or 
paid  a  per  capita  charge.  Even  in  the  former  case,  the 
royal  officials  exercised  some  supervision  over  the  assess- 
ment, for  they  were  instructed  to  prevent  unfair  taxation 
of  the  poor.  The  collection  was  made  by  the  sheriff.28 

Peace  between  the  king  and  the  last  of  the  rebellious 
barons  was  finally  made  in  1268.  The  latter  were 
allowed  to  redeem  their  lands,  but  they  claimed  that  they 
were  too  poor  to  do  this.  Influenced  by  Ottobon,  the 
bishops  agreed  to  the  levy  of  a  twentieth  on  the  spirit- 
ualities and  temporalities  of  the  clergy  to  be  paid  to  the 
king  on  behalf  of  the  disinherited  barons.27  The  tax  was 
levied  according  to  the  assessment  of  125428  and  was 
collected  by  the  bishops  and  archdeacons.29 

24  Madox,  I,  727,  n.  TO;  748,  n.  n;  749,  n.  x;  756,  n.  *;  Vincent,  pp. 
109,  111;  Cat.  Pat.  Rolls  (Record  Com.),  pp.  41b,  42b. 

25  In  Cambridgeshire,  the   king's   escheator  made   the   assessment 
(Liber  Mem.  de  BernewelU,  p.  80). 

26  The  tallage  was  to  be  levied  "separatim  per  capita,  vel  in  com- 
nnini,  prout  magis  viderit  expedire";  if  a  fine  were  made  in  grosso, 
the  tallager  was  to  remain  till  the  tallage  was  assessed  "ita  quod 
divitibus  non  parcatur,  nee  pauperes  indebite  graventur.    Et  extractas 
tocius  tallagii  predicti  liberetis  vicecomitibus  nostris  citra  Trentam, 
ad  illud  tallagium  levandum"  (Rymer,  I,  478). 

27Raine,  pp.  17,  18;  Wykes,  pp.  219-220;  a  fortieth,  Osney,  p.  218. 

28  "secundum   taxationem   domini   Walteri   de   Suthfeud,  quondam 
episcopi  Norwycensis"  (Bartholomew  Cotton,  Historia  Anglicana,  ed. 
Luard,    Rolls    Series,    p.    141);    "taxacio    facta    per    bone    memorie 
dominum    Walterum    episcopum    Norwycensem"     (Liber    Mem.    de 
Bernewelle,  p.  191);  there  is  no  date  given  for  this  last  valuation; 
the  amount  paid  was  a  twentieth  and  the  valuation  refers  either  to 
the  levy  of  1268  or  to  the  twentieth  for  the  crusade  of  1270. 

29  Thus  the  archbishop  of  York  ordered  the  archdeacon  of  Rich- 
mond to  make  a  payment  of  fifty  marks  out  of  the  twentieth  which 
the  latter  had  collected  (Raine,  p.  19). 

294 


UNDER  JOHN  AND  HENRY  III 

THE  TWENTIETH,  1269-1270 

The  purpose  of  the  twentieth  was  to  supply  money  for 
the  crusade  made  by  Edward  in  1270.  As  this  was  not 
one  of  the  regular  feudal  aids  in  England,  the  king  could 
not  levy  it  at  will,  nor  did  he  obtain  from  any  single  body 
of  men  the  authority  to  collect  it  from  all  the  property 
in  the  realm.  At  some  time  before  August  7,  1269,30  the 

so  The  date  of  the  grant  can  not  be  exactly  fixed.  Thomas  Wykes 
says  that  Henry  III  summoned  the  prelates,  lay  magnates,  and 
important  men  of  the  towns  to  London  to  celebrate  the  translation 
of  the  remains  of  St.  Edward  on  October  13,  1269  (convocatis  uni- 
versis  Angliae  praelatis  et  magnatibus,  necnon  cunctarum  regni  sui 
civitatum  pariter  et  burgorum  potentioribus)  (Wykes,  p.  226)  ;  after- 
ward, a  council  was  held  and  the  king  asked  for  a  grant  for  the 
crusade.  The  question  was  discussed  and  a  twentieth  of  the  goods 
of  the  laity  and  of  the  lay  fees  of  the  clergy  was  granted  (coeperunt 
nobiles,  ut  assolent,  parliamentationis  genere  de  regis  et  regni  negotiis 
pertractare  .  .  .  concessum  est  quod  de  universis  laicorum  mobilibus 
per  regnum  Angliae  sibi  vicesima  solveretur)  (ibid.,  p.  227).  Accord- 
ing to  this  source,  the  grant  was  made  about  the  middle  of  October. 
Furthermore,  we  know  that  there  was  discussion  of  the  twentieth  at 
this  time,  for  on  October  14,  the  clergy  refused  to  agree  to  it  on  the 
property  of  the  churches  and  of  religious  houses  which  did  not  hold 
by  military  service  (Wilkins,  II,  19-20).  But  a  letter  from  Henry  III 
to  the  bishop  of  Worcester  shows  that  the  tax  had  already  been 
granted  when  the  October  council  met.  This  letter  speaks  of  the 
tax  as  "vicesimam  .  .  .  nobis  a  magnatibus  et  aliis  regni  nostri  fideli- 
bus  in  subsidium  terrae  sanctae  concessum";  the  date  of  the  document 
is  given  at  its  close:  "Teste  me  ipso  apud  Cicestr'  vii  die  Augusti,  a. 
r.  n.  liii,"  or  August  7,  1269  (Wilkins,  II,  20;  Vincent,  p.  93). 
Henry  III  was  at  Chichester  on  August  7  and  8  only,  during  the 
fifty-third  year  of  his  reign  (Vincent,  above).  The  instructions  to 
the  bishop  show  that  the  date  of  this  letter  is  correct.  He  is  ordered 
to  have  the  knights,  already  chosen  as  assessors  and  collectors  of 
the  tax,  take  the  oath  which  has  been  provided  so  that  on  the  morrow 
of  Michaelmas  (1269)  they  could  at  once  proceed  to  carry  out  the 
orders  concerning  the  twentieth  which  were  sent  with  the  letter 
(vobis  mandamus  rogantes  quod  a  ...  Willielmo  de  Salsomarisco,  etc. 
electis  ad  vicesimam  hujusmodi  colligendam,  recipiatis  sacramentum 
.  .  .  ita  quod  in  crastino  S.  Michaelis  proxime  future  sine  ulteriore 
dilatione  procedere  possint,  ad  faciendum  in  hac  parte  quod  eis  de 
praedicta  vicesima  secundum  dictam  formam  injunxeritis)  (Wilkins, 

295 


STUDIES  IN  TAXATION 

lay  and  clerical  tenants  in  chief  granted  a  twentieth  of 
the  personal  property  on  all  lands  of  lay  tenants  in  chief 
and  on  the  lands  which  the  clergy  held  by  knights'  ser- 
vice.31 Toward  the  end  of  April,  1270,  the  bishops  and 

II,  20).  Now  the  work  for  which  preparation  was  to  be  made  during 
August  and  September  and  which  was  to  begin  on  September  30 
was  the  assessment  of  the  twentieth.  The  testimony  of  Wykes  bears 
directly  on  this  point;  the  goods  which  were  assessed,  he  says,  were 
those  which  were  held  on  September  29,  1269  (regia  cupiditas  .  .  . 
compulit  ut  secundum  fere  verum  valorem,  prout  in  festo  S.  Michaelis 
proximo  praecedente,  quaecumque  bonorum  genera  habebant,  mobilia 
pariter  et  immobilia,  taxarentur)  (Wykes,  p.  228).  The  twentieth 
on  lay  fees  was  granted,  therefore,  and  the  method  and  time  of 
assessment  provided  in  some  council  which  met  before  August  7, 
1269.  What  then  was  the  action  of  the  council  described  by  Wykes? 
The  chronicler  can  not  be  referring  to  the  refusal  of  the  clergy  of 
October  14,  for  he  states  specifically  that  it  was  the  laity  who  were 
taxed:  "concessum  est  quod  de  universis  laicorum  mobilibus  per 
regnum  Angliae  sibi  vicesima  solveretur  ut  non  solum  ut  praediximus 
clericorum  marsupia  per  quadriennalem  decimarum  extorsionem 
vacua  redderentur  sed  et  regis  insatiata  cupido  laicorum  medullas 
profundissime  scrutaretur"  (ibid.,  p.  227).  The  grant  of  October 
must  have  been  a  confirmation  of  the  previous  decision  to  pay  the 
twentieth,  an  action  which  was  necessitated  by  the  opposition  to  the 
tax  (see  below).  Such  a  confirmation  would  have  especial  force 
because  there  was  a  very  large  attendance  at  the  October  session, 
due  to  the  unusual  character  of  the  religious  ceremonies  in  connection 
with  the  feast  of  St.  Edward  in  1269;  no  doubt  many  more  were 
present  than  at  the  previous  meeting. 

31  Vincent,  pp.  92-96;  Gerv.  Cant.,  II,  250;  Cont.  Chron.  Will,  de 
Novo  Burgo,  II,  556,  557;  Lib.  de  Ant.  Leg.,  p.  122;  Ann.  Cestrienses, 
p.  100;  Cotton,  pp.  143,  144.  That  the  grant  made  at  this  time 
extended  to  the  lay  fees  of  the  prelates  is  not  certain.  Thomas  Wykes 
says  that  the  tax  was  granted  on  the  property  of  the  laity,  "de  uni- 
versis laicorum  mobilibus."  He  is  however  contrasting  this  levy  with 
the  clerical  tenths  which  had  not  been  paid  by  property  on  land  held 
by  military  tenure.  The  chronicler's  phrase  therefore  may  mean  the 
moveables  on  land  held  by  lay  tenure.  There  is  also  a  writ  on  the 
Close  Roll  which,  as  paraphrased  by  Vincent  (pp.  93-94),  speaks  of 
the  "twentieth  .  .  .  granted  ...  by  the  magnates  and  knights  and 
other  laymen;  commanding  those  assigned  for  levying  the  tax  not 
to  intermeddle  at  present  with  the  goods  of  ecclesiastical  persons," 
but  the  meaning  of  the  document  is  not  clear.  In  the  council  of 
April  20,  1270,  the  bishops  and  heads  of  religious  houses  granted  the 

296 


UNDER  JOHN  AND  HENRY  III 

heads  of  religious  houses  agreed  that  the  twentieth  should 
be  paid  on  their  demesne  lands.  This  grant  by  the  prel- 
ates was  not  to  form  a  precedent;  the  receipts  were  to 
be  devoted  only  to  the  crusade  and  were  to  be  held  in 
deposit  till  the  king  or  his  son  departed.32  In  October, 
1269,  the  beneficed  clergy  and  the  abbots  and  priors  of 
the  province  of  Canterbury  refused  to  concede  the 
twentieth.33  At  some  time  in  1270,  however,  the  bishops 
agreed  that  the  property  of  the  churches  should  pay  the 
levy34  and  to  this  the  beneficed  clergy  later  assented.35 
The  twentieth  was  also  collected  on  the  royal  demesne, 
apparently  by  virtue  of  the  grant  made  by  the  tenants 
in  chief.  The  towns  often  compounded  for  it,  so  that  in 
effect  they  paid  a  tallage,  a  customary  due.36  Thus  in 
spite  of  opposition,37  the  king  finally  obtained  the  tax 
from  all  classes  in  the  kingdom. 

The  government  intended  to  make  a  new  valuation  of 
all  property  which  was  held  on  September  29,  1269.  The 
assessment  was  often  delayed  till  the  goods  were  sold  or 
consumed  and  the  choice  of  that  date  aroused  complaint.38 

twentieth  on  their  demesnes.  This  means,  not  that  their  fees  were  to 
escape,  but  that  arrangements  had  already  been  made  to  tax  them. 
We  can  say  certainly  that  the  prelates  agreed  to  the  tax  on  their 
fees  at  some  time  before  April  20,  1270,  and  that  probably  the  deci- 
sion was  made  when  the  laity  agreed  to  the  twentieth. 

32  Shirley,  II,  336;  Vincent,  p.  94;  Raine,  pp.  23,  24;  Wilkins,  II, 
21,  22;  meeting  of  the  council  mentioned  and  the  twentieth  (Wint., 
p.  108). 

33  Wilkins,  II,  19-20. 
s*  Raine,  p.  25. 

35  Raine,  p.  38. 

se  Vincent,  pp.  97,  104. 

37  See  above,  note  33;  Wykes,  p.  228.  The  statement  of  Cotton  that 
the  twentieth  was  asked  for  in  1269  but  not  granted  till  1270,  shows 
the  opposition  to  the  tax  (Cotton,  pp.  143,  144). 

38"vicesimam  verae  sestimationis"  (Raine,  p.  38);  "secundum  fere 
verum  valorem,  prout  in  festo  S.  Michaelis  proximo  praecedente" 
(Wykes,  p.  228) ;  Vincent,  p.  93. 

297 


STUDIES  IN  TAXATION 

The  method  of  assessment  was  about  the  same  as  in  1237, 
but  there  was  a  new  device  for  choosing  the  jurors  of 
the  vill.  The  king  sent  assessors  and  collectors,  usually 
four  in  number,  into  each  county.39  These  royal  officials 
chose  twelve  men  in  each  hundred;  the  latter  then  chose 
six  men  from  each  vill  who  swore  to  the  value  of  the  per- 
sonal property  of  every  man  in  the  vill.  The  property 
of  the  jurors  was  assessed  by  six  other  men  of  the  vill. 
All  the  officials  were  under  oath.  The  goods  assessed  as 
well  as  those  exempt  were  enumerated  in  the  writ;  they 
comprised  the  same  kinds  of  property  as  before.40  The 
royal  commissioners  received  the  money  and  delivered  it 
to  a  body  of  three  men  who  stored  it  in  the  New  Temple 
at  London.41  There  were  some  exceptions  to  this  scheme 
of  assessment.  The  clergy  were  allowed  to  assess  and 
collect  the  tax  on  their  demesnes  and  on  the  property  of 
the  churches.42  There  is  no  evidence  to  show  whether 
they  made  a  new  assessment  or  levied  the  tax  on  the  basis 
of  the  valuation  of  1254. 43  Some  churchmen  fined  for 
the  twentieth.44 

The  complete  account  of  the  tax  was  not  rendered  till 

39  In  Bucks,  there  were  two  assessors ;  in  Yorkshire,  six. 

40  Vincent,  pp.  92,  93,  94;  Wilkins,  II,  20. 

41  Vincent,  pp.  98,  100-105.    The  three  men  who  received  the  money 
were  a  Templar,  a  Hospitaller,  and  a  clerk  of  the  wardrobe;  the 
whole  of  the  twentieth  was  paid  to  them,  both  that  coming  from  the 
regular  county  assessors  and  that  from  the  clergy  and  the  towns. 

42  Shirley,  II,  336;  Vincent,  p.  94;  Raine,  pp.  23,  24,  25;  Wilkins, 
II,  22.    The  king  at  first  thought  of  compelling  the  clergy  to  pay  to 
his  own  assessors:  "si  necesse  fuerit,  ipsam  vicesimam  levari  faciant 
in  manu  forti"  (Raine,  p.  25),  but  thought  better  of  it  (Wilkins,  II, 
22).     He  tried  the  plan  in  the  archbishopric  of  York,  but  the  arch- 
bishop intervened  successfully  to  prevent  its  execution  (Raine,  p.  38). 

43  Probably  the  assessment  used  was  that  of  1254.    The  churchmen 
had  preferred  that  in  1266  and  1268   (see  above,  pp.  292,  294);  the 
tenths  of  1273  were  based  on  that  valuation:  "secundum  taxationem 
Northwicensem"  (Dunst.,  p.  256);  see  above,  p.  293,  note  22. 

44  Raine,  p.  38;  Dunst.,  pp.  254,  257. 


UNDER  JOHN  AND  HENRY  III 

1273,  but  much  of  the  money  had  been  paid  before  Edward 
set  out  in  1270.45    The  account  of  the  twentieth  follows  :4* 

£  s  d 

Counties              .          .          .        27,013  0  1% 

Cities  and  towns        .          .          2,086  1  4 

Bishops               .          .          .             541  6  8 

Abbots  and  priors      .          .          1,848  9  3 

Total        ....        31,488  17 


Nearly  the  whole  of  this  sum  was  spent  on  the  crusade. 

«  He  sailed  August  20  (Ramsay,  p.  272). 
«  Vincent,  pp.  100-105  ;  Madox,  I,  610,  n.  ». 


CHAPTER  X 

SUMMAEY 

T  N  our  study  of  the  material  thus  far  presented,  certain 
•*•  tentative  conclusions  have  already  been  advanced. 
In  this  chapter,  however,  we  shall  endeavor  to  draw  those 
conclusions  together  in  a  final  statement  which  will  deal 
in  turn  with  the  military  service  under  John  and  Henry 
III,  the  scutage  and  the  fine,  the  tallage,  the  donum,  the 
carucage,  and  the  tax  on  personal  property,  and,  because 
of  its  marked  development  in  the  thirteenth  century,  with 
the  great  council  and  its  relation  to  taxation. 

As  the  scutage  grew  directly  out  of  knights'  service, 
any  study  of  it  in  the  thirteenth  century  involves  an 
examination  of  the  amount  of  military  service  rendered 
to  the  king  by  his  vassals.  Round  has  estimated  the 
servitium  debitum  under  Henry  II  at  about  5,000  knights, 
a  number  which  does  not  seem  too  large.  For  calculations 
dealing  with  the  service  due  from  England  as  a  whole, 
it  is  however  more  convenient  to  take  the  number  of  fees 
on  which  scutage  was  paid  to  the  king  rather  than  the 
servitium  debitum.  In  a  great  many  cases,  we  cannot 
do  otherwise,  for  the  amount  of  the  latter  is  known  in 
only  about  two-thirds  of  the  lay  holdings  of  five  or  more 
fees  each,1  and  furthermore,  in  making  our  calculation  on 
this  basis  no  great  error  will  be  introduced.  If  we  say 
that  one-fourth  of  the  fees  of  England  compounded  in 
any  given  year  while  three- fourths  were  exempt  on  account 
of  service,  and  if  we  base  each  amount  on  the  number  of 
fees  which  accounted  at  the  exchequer,  we  shall  reach  a 
proportion  that  would  not  be  essentially  different  from 
that  obtained  by  using  the  servitium  debitum.  The 
i  Round,  Feudal  England,  p.  292. 

300 


UNDER  JOHN  AND  HENRY  III 

number  of  fees  which  accounted  at  the  exchequer  prob- 
ably became  fixed  at  some  time  before  the  close  of  the 
twelfth  century,  and  certainly  did  not  change  materially 
after  121 1.2  The  number  was  somewhat  greater  than  the 
servitium  debitum.  If  the  old  enfeoffment  exceeded  the 
servitium  debitum  on  any  holding,  then  the  old  enfeoffment 
was  taxed ;  contrariwise,  if  the  servitium  debitum  exceeded 
the  old  enfeoffment,  the  servitium  debitum  was  taxed. 
The  new  enfeoffment  was  never  taxed  except  when  the 
honor  was  in  hand,  though  there  were  many  cases  when 
it  was  entered  in  the  roll.8  Ordinarily  the  old  enfeoffment 

2  The  number  of  fees  is  regularly  stated  in  the  roll  beginning  with 
1211. 

s 


fe 


SSj         £§ 

os      ze 


If 


Hugh  de  Dover,  Kent     ....  12%  2%  14 

William  de  Abrincis,  Kent     .         .         .  21%  2%  21% 

Walkelin  de  Mamignot,  Kent  ...  27  1  27 

Walter  de  Mayenne,  Kent       ...  20  1%  30        29 

John  de  Port,  Hants       ....  55  2  55 

Aluredus  de  Lincoln,  Dors,  and  Somers.  25  4  24 

Gerbert  de  Percy,  Dors,  and  Somers.  80  1  30 

William  de  Curcy,  Dors,  and  Somers.     .  25%  4  24 

William  de  Mohun,  Dors,  and  Somers.  .  39%  4  41 

Robert  de  Beauchamp,  Dors,  and  Somers.  15  17        17 

Walter  Waleram,  Wilts  ....  12  25        25 

Humphrey  de  Boun,  Wilts     .         .         .  30%  9%  30% 

Earl  of  Essex,  Essex  and  Herts   .         .  97%  15  60        98% 

Walter  Fitz  Robert,  Essex  and  Herts   .  63%  3  50        63% 

William  de  Munfichet,  Essex  and  Herts  .  47%        %  40        47% 

Earl  of  Arundel,  Sussex          .         .          .  84%  26  84% 

Gervase  Painel,  Staff  .....  50  5%  50,51 

Baderun   de  Munemue,   Hereford  10  15         15 

Walter  de  Wahull,  Bucks  and  Bedf.       .  27%%    1%  30        30 

Robert  de  Albeny,  Bucks  and  Bedf.       .  13  25        25 

Richard  de  Haia,  Lincoln       .         .         .11  4  20         16 

Roger  de  Mowbray,  York       .         .         .  88%  11%  60        88% 

The  clergy  regularly  paid  on  the  fees  quos  recognoscit  only. 

301 


STUDIES  IN  TAXATION 

exceeded  the  servitium  debitum.  The  total  number  of 
fees  which  were  liable  for  scutage  in  the  thirteenth  century 
was  somewhat  over  6,500.* 

When  we  examine  the  scutage  accounts  of  the  first 
half  of  the  thirteenth  century,  we  see  that  the  king  in 
summoning  the  host  did  not  actually  secure  all  this 
service  in  the  field.  The  number  of  fees  which  purchased 
exemption  by  scutage  or  fine  varied  from  800  in  1221  to 
4,000  in  1205.5  If  we  consider  the  holders  rather  than 
the  fees,  we  get  the  same  result.  Taking  150  as  a  fair 
number  of  lay  tenants  holding  five  or  more  fees  each  in 
the  kingdom,  we  see  that  although  a  majority  of  them 
usually  continued  to  perform  their  service,  yet  many 
compounded  for  it.  Not  only  did  part  of  the  tenants 
fail  to  serve,  but  those  who  answered  the  summons  to  the 
host  brought  with  them  only  part  of  their  nominal  con- 
tingents. We  cannot  say  when  this  practice  of  serving 
with  only  fractional  quotas  became  widespread,  but 
probably  it  was  customary  from  the  beginning  of  John's 
reign.6  The  king  sometimes  summoned  only  a  fraction  of 
the  knights:  Henry  II,  in  1157,  called  out  a  third;7 
Richard  in  1194,  a  third,  and  in  1198  a  tenth;8  and  John 
in  1205  a  tenth.9  These  summons  have  been  treated  as 
though  they  were  merely  examples  of  an  occasional 
practice,10  but  taken  in  conjunction  with  the  other 
evidence  of  reduced  service,  they  seem  to  be  the  substi- 

*  See  above,  pp.  127,  note  33;  243,  note  80;  257,  note  14. 

Morris,  The  Welsh  Wars  of  Edward  I,  p.  36,  gives  about  the  same 
figures:  "towards  7,000."  He  bases  his  conclusions  on  the  Pipe  Rolls 
of  7  and  8  Edward  I.  Morris,  however,  is  wrong  in  thinking  that  his 
conclusion  differs  from  that  of  Round.  They  are  calculating  different 
things.  Round  is  estimating  the  servitium  debitum  and  Morris  is 
taking  the  number  of  fees  that  pay  scutage,  a  number  which  in  the 
thirteenth  century  is  larger  than  the  servitium  debitum. 

s  See  above,  pp.  71,  139. 

«  See  above,  pp.  48,  note  166;  64,  note  257;  97,  110,  111,  150,  174, 
183,  196,  226,  245,  255,  285. 

302 


UNDER  JOHN  AND  HENRY  III 

The  composition  of  an  army  of  1218  shows  partial  service: 
"Exercitus  summonitus  apud  Stamford'  .  .  .  anno  regni  domini 
Henricis  regis  secundo"  (Scutage  Rolls,  no.  2).  The  following  are 

some  examples:  Knights 

Ser-        fur- 
vice     nished 

Hervey  Bagot           ...  60  5 

John   Fitz  Alan       .         .         .  22}£  5 

Bishop  of  Hereford  ...  15  5 

Robert  de  Chandos  ...  13  1 

Walter  de  Lacy       ...  51  5 

Earl  of  Gloucester  .         .         .261  21 

Earl  of   Warwick    .         .         .  102  4 

Oliver  de  Aincurt   ...  35  3 

Peter  de  Brus          ...  15  5 

William  de  Mowbray  88  5 

Archbishop  of  York         .  20  15 

Bishop  of  Durham  ...  10  15 

Gilbert  Gaunt           ...  68  5 

Abbot  of  Peterborough   .         .  60  30 

Honor  of  Wallingford      .         .  100  10 

Roger  Bigod   ....  125  5 

Abbot  of  S.  Edmunds  40  10 

Robert  Fitz  Walter  63  3 

Earl  of  Oxford       ...  30  4 

Abbot  of  S.  Albans  6  10 

From  an  account  of  another  army  (during  the  minority,  for  Falkes 
de  Breaut6  served),  the  following  cases  are  taken  (Scutage  Rolls, 

n°'3):  Knights 

Ser-        fur- 
vice     nished 

Bishop  of  Norwich  ...  60  5 

Roger  Clifford          ...  19  5 

William  de  St.  John  55  5 

Earl  Warenne           ...  60  15 

Earl  of  Salisbury   ...  40  5 

Earl   Ferrers    ....  68  10 

Honor  of  Wallingford     .         .  100  12 

John   Fitz  Alan        .          .          .  22^  6 

Richard  de  Munfichet  47  4 

Robert   Marmiun      .          .          .  11  6 

Norman  de  Arescy  20  2 

Walter  de  Lacy       .         .         .  51  4 

Ivo  de  Heriz  ....  4  1 

7  Chronica  Roberti  de  Torigneio,  ed.  Richard  Hewlett,  Chroniclet 
of  the  Reigns  of  Stephen,  Henry  II  and  Richard  I,  IV,  193. 

303 


STUDIES  IN  TAXATION 

tution  of  a  uniform  fractional  part  of  the  service  for  the 
irregular  fractional  contingents  which  the  tenants  ordi- 
narily brought  to  the  host.  By  the  middle  of  Henry  Ill's 
reign,  the  partial  service  from  the  greater  fees  was  coming 
to  be  recognized  in  law  as  the  total  service  which  the  king 
could  exact  from  the  holding.11  That  is,  a  new  servitium 
debitum  had  been  created.  By  Edward  I's  day,  the  king 
had  abandoned  in  many  cases  any  claim  which  in  theory 
he  might  still  have  maintained  to  more  than  a  small 
fraction  of  the  old  servitium  debitum.12  If  the  greater 
tenants  (each  five  or  more  fees)  had  their  service  thus 
reduced,  it  might  be  expected  that  the  lesser  tenants 
(each  fewer  than  five  fees)  would  have  their  service 
entirely  commuted  into  money.  This  was  true  of  the 
majority,  though  some  lesser  vassals  continued  to  serve 
with  the  host  in  person  or  by  deputy.13 

The  reduced  amount  of  service  was  insufficient  for  the 
king's  needs,  at  least  for  campaigns  abroad.  Both  John 
and  Henry  III  continually  employed  mercenaries  as  well 
as  tenants  in  their  armies.14  Special  inducements  were 
made  to  tenants  to  serve  overseas  for  a  long  period.  In 
1204,  Henry  de  Scalariis  crossed  to  Normandy  with  two 
knights  and  in  return  his  father  was  acquitted  of  his 
scutage  and  pardoned  a  forest  fine  of  sixty  marks.15 
William  de  Mara  owed  the  Jews  £25  10s  which  was  par- 

s  HOT.,  Ill,  242;  Chron.  Joe.  de  Brak.,  p.  63.  See  also  Powicke, 
The  Loss  of  Normandy,  ch.  VIII,  and  especially  p.  315,  in  regard  to 
a  summons  of  1196.  Professor  Powicke's  book  contains  much  material 
on  the  financial  and  military  aspects  of  John's  reign,  but  it  came  to 
hand  too  late  to  be  of  service  here. 

»  Rot.  Litt.  Pat.,  p.  55a. 

10  Pollock  and  Maitland,  History  of  English  Law  (2d  ed.),  I,  255. 

"  See  above,  pp.  221,  245  ff. 

12  Parliamentary  Writs,  I,  197;  Morris,  p.  43  ff. 

is  See  index:  lesser  tenants. 

n  See  index:  mercenaries. 

16  Rot.  Lib.,  p.  89. 

304 


UNDER  JOHN  AND  HENRY  III 

doned  by  the  king  in  June,  provided  he  served  with  three 
knights  and  five  sergeants  till  the  following  Easter.16  A 
debt  of  250  marks  owed  by  Geoffrey  de  Say  to  the  Jews 
was  pardoned  under  similar  conditions.17  In  1213,  men 
promised  to  serve  the  king  usually  for  a  year,  and  in 
return  debts  to  the  exchequer  were  cancelled.18  Did  the 
king  want  more  or  fewer  English  tenants  with  him?  For 
the  Welsh  wars,  a  large  force  of  knights  was  not  neces- 
sary, as  the  most  valuable  army  was  a  combination  of 
knights  and  footmen,  a  condition  due  to  the  mountainous 
character  of  the  country,19  and  it  is  likely  that  the  king 
obtained  knights  enough  from  his  tenants.20  But  in 
France  conditions  were  different.  The  king's  dependence 
there  was  mainly  on  knights,  and  he  does  not  seem  to 
have  succeeded  in  obtaining  a  sufficient  number  from  his 
English  tenants.  The  loss  of  Normandy  was  due  in  part 
to  the  withdrawal  of  the  English  vassals.  In  1205  and  in 
1213,  campaigning  on  a  large  scale  was  abandoned  because 
the  English  tenants  refused  to  take  part.21  In  1214,  after 
considerable  success,  John  asked  that  more  tenants  come 
to  his  aid.22  Henry  III  undertook  to  invade  France  in 
1229  only  after  consultation  with  the  barons;  he  also 

i«  Rot.  Lib.,  p.  42. 

17  Ibid.,  p.  48.  In  1204  a  certain  de  Nevill  fined  in  60m  and  one 
palfrey  to  marry  the  widow  of  Jordan  de  Anevill  and  have  her  land 
"et  serviet  regi  solus  miles  cum  equis  et  armis  per  annum  unum  ad 
custum  suum"  (Pipe  Roll,  6  John,  m.  3  d). 

is  Rot.  Obi.,  pp.  465-476. 

19  Morris,  pp.  16,  18. 

20  Mercenaries  however  were  used  against  the  Welsh ;  tenants  were 
disseized  for  failure  to  serve.    In  1211  an  insufficient  number  answered 
the   first    summons    (see    above,    pp.    101,    145,    206,   244,    245).      In 
1245,  the  host  which  accompanied  the  king's  person   was   sufficient: 
"Quia   rex   credit   sufficientem   gentem   se   habere    ad   inimicos    regis 
gravandos"  (Close  Rolls,  no.  58,  m.  3  d) ;  additional  knights  were  to 
go  to  other  parts  of  Wales. 

21  See  above,  p.  69,  and  below,  p.  310. 

22  See  above,  p.  112. 

305 


STUDIES  IN  TAXATION 

granted  them  their  scutages  before  the  host  assembled, 
evidently  that  they  might  be  able  to  come  as  well  equipped 
as  possible.23  On  two  other  occasions  he  showed  his 
reliance  on  the  English  tenants.24  The  same  desire  of  the 
king  is  shown  when  we  look  at  the  tenants  who  appeared 
in  the  host.  The  greater  tenants  for  the  most  part  con- 
tinued to  serve,  although  a  fine  or  a  scutage  would  often 
have  been  less  burdensome.  It  is  also  noteworthy  that 
lesser  tenants,  even  men  holding  one  or  two  fees,  continued 
to  serve  in  person  or  by  deputy.25 

Furthermore,  a  tenant  who  failed  to  answer  the 
summons  to  the  host  might  still  fear  the  loss  of  his  lands. 
The  abbot  Samson  hastened  to  satisfy  Richard  for  his 
knights  lest  he  should  lose  his  barony  as  others  had  done 
before  him.28  There  are  several  cases  of  disseizin  under 
John,  though  none  of  a  great  baron.27  Under  Henry  III 
there  are  frequent  references  either  to  disseizin  or  to  dis- 

23  See  above,  pp.  171,  181,  186,  note  42;  187. 

2*  In  1242  and  1253  (see  above,  pp.  224  f.,  254,  261^.). 

25  If  we  take  150  as  the  number  of  tenants  who  held  five  or  more 
fees  each,  we  see  that  usually  only  a  minority  paid  scutage  or  fine, 
except  in  1205,  when  only  a  picked  body  of  knights  was  sent.  See 
above  for  the  number  of  greater  tenants  who  compounded,  pp.  22, 
23,  36,  47,  48,  55,  and  see  index:  tenants.  In  1242,  eight  earls  went 
with  Henry  III  (Matthew  Paris,  IV,  192).  The  king's  letter  of  that 
year  in  which  he  asked  knights  to  come  to  his  aid  and  promised  them 
remission  of  fines  and  also  wages,  if  they  demanded  them,  does  not 
show  that  the  king  was  unable  to  enforce  service  in  Gascony  (Rymer, 
I,  246).  The  tenants  had  already  agreed  to  fine  and  Henry  III  was 
unable  to  set  this  bargain  aside  at  will.  He  had  therefore  to  ask 
them  for  service  as  a  favor.  Notice  the  entry  in  the  Dunstable  annals, 
above,  p.  226,  note  11.  Some  cases  of  tenants  holding  fewer  than 
five  fees  who  served  have  been  given  above  in  the  references  on  p.  302, 
note  6;  see  p.  304,  note  13. 

2«  "timens  ne  amitteret  saisinam  baronie  sue  pro  defectu  servicii 
regis,  sicut  contigerat  episcopo  Lundoniensi  et  multis  baronibus" 
(Chron.  Joe.  de  Brak.,  p.  63). 

27  Henry  de  Criketot  in  1205  (Rot.  Obi,  p.  301);  Malgerus  le 
Vavasur  in  1210  (Madox,  I,  663,  n.  y) ;  William  de  Kav'  in  1207 
(Rot.  Lift.  Glaus.,  I,  85a) ;  Hugh  de  Gornaco,  Fulk  Fitz  Warin,  and 

306 


UNDER  JOHN  AND  HENRY  III 

traint  to  compel  tenants  to  serve.28  Some  of  the  orders 
thus  referred  to  may  have  been  merely  formal,  yet  the 
practice  of  disseizin  or  distraint,  as  a  means  of  compelling 
obedience  to  the  summons,  must  have  been  in  force,  else 
it  is  difficult  to  see  how  the  king  could  have  got  so  much 
service  out  of  his  tenants,  particularly  for  campaigns  in 
France.29 

One  cause  of  the  decrease  in  the  amount  of  service 
rendered  by  the  greater  tenants  was  their  inability  to 
exact  knights'  service  from  their  vassals.  The  latter 
were  reluctant  to  serve.  In  1198  the  tenants  of  the  abbot 
of  St.  Edmunds  claimed  that  they  were  bound  to  pay 
scutage,  but  not  to  serve  outside  England.30  The  tenants 
of  the  abbey  of  Evesham  were  unwilling  to  serve.31  In 
1258,  the  tenants  of  the  abbot  of  Ramsey  refused  to  serve 
and  the  abbot  had  to  hire  knights  and  sergeants.32  In 
1257  the  abbot  of  St.  Albans  with  difficulty  got  his  knights 
to  acknowledge  that  they  owed  service.33  The  success  of 

Badwinus  de  Hodenet  for  withdrawing  from  the  king's  service  in 
1203  (Rot.  Lib.,  pp.  73,  74)  ;  Philip  de  Aire  for  failure  to  answer  the 
summons  (ibid.,  p.  69);  Matthew  de  Cliveden,  Elias  Ginant,  and 
Robert  of  London  in  1210  (Madox,  I,  491,  n.  6,  d,  e)  ;  Duncan  de 
Lasceles  for  the  Scottish  expedition  (ibid.,  p.  663,  n.  w) ;  Albreda 
de  Lincoln  in  1210  (Pipe  Roll,  12  John,  Dors,  and  Somers.,  Nova 
Oblata). 

28  In  1221  the  sheriff  was  forbidden  to  trouble  those  tenants  who 
did  not  answer  the  summons  to  the  army  of  Biham  (Rot.  Litt.  Claus., 
I,  475a)  ;  in  1223,  tenants  who  had   failed  to  serve  in  the  army  of 
Wales  were  disseized   (ibid.,  572b)  ;  the  case  of  Robert  de  Amauri 
(ibid.,  617a) ;  see  also  above,  pp.  225,  226,  245,  254,  255. 

29  This  conclusion  seems  to  be  warranted  also  by  the  fact  that  when 
the  tenant  was  excused  from  the  host  by  the  king,  a  writ  was  issued 
to  the  sheriff  not  to  distrain  him  for  his  service:  Henry  de  Waltham 
in  1229,  the  Templars  in  1231;  Thomas  Mauduit  was  in  the  host  and 
was  not  to  be  distrained  for  his  service  (Close  Rolls,  I,  216,  540,  593). 

so  Chron.  Joe.  de  Brak.,  p.  63. 

si  William  Salt  Arch.  Soc.  Coll,  V,  part  I,  p.  2. 

32  Maitland,  Manorial  Courts,  pp.  60-62. 

33  Matthew  Paris,  VI,  375-376.    See  above,  pp.  240,  245,  285. 


307 


STUDIES  IN  TAXATION 

the  rear-vassals  has  been  attributed  to  the  lack  of  power 
of  the  baronial  courts.  The  lords  were  unable  to  compel 
their  knights  to  perform  their  service  without  the  aid  of 
the  king's  court,  which  gave  them  little  assistance.34 
Although  there  is  evidence  that  royal  aid  was  necessary 
during  John's  reign,35  this  explanation  of  the  decline  of 
service  is  on  the  whole  unsatisfactory  because  it  implies 
that  the  king  was  indifferent  to  the  number  of  knights 
which  he  obtained  from  his  vassals,  whereas  the  contrary 
seems  to  have  been  true.  It  has  also  been  suggested  that 
sub-infeudation  was  so  great  that  there  were  few  actual 
knights  left  who  were  holding  land,36  and  undoubtedly  this 
was  an  important  factor.37  But  of  greater  importance 
were  the  character  of  the  campaigns  and  the  increased 
value  of  a  knight's  service.  Tenants  were  expected  to 
serve  both  in  England  and  in  France.  At  home,  cam- 

s*  Pollock  and  Maitland,  I,  272. 

ss  For  the  earl  of  Chester  (Rot.  Litt.  Pat.,  p.  88b,  1209).  In  1203, 
Thomas  de  Arcy  was  to  be  helped  in  making  his  tenants  serve:  "Rex 
etc.  G.  filio  Petri  etc.  .  .  .  et  milites  ipsius  Thomae  distringatis  que  ei 
servitia  sua  faciant  que  facere  debent"  (Rot.  Lib.,  p.  44). 

3«  Pollock  and  Maitland,  I,  272-274. 

37  Most  of  this  sub-infeudation  in  the  higher  ranks  of  rear-vassals 
must  have  taken  place  before  the  thirteenth  century.  The  practice 
of  dividing  fees  into  fractional  parts  should  not  be  exaggerated, 
though  many  examples  can  be  cited  of  tenants  who  held  tenth, 
twentieth,  fortieth,  and  sixtieth  parts  of  fees.  Some  of  these  were 
new  creations.  It  is  likely  that  the  size  of  holdings  among  rear- 
vassals  remained  fixed  in  the  thirteenth  century  just  as  they  did 
among  the  tenants  in  chief,  and  that  there  were  therefore  many  rear- 
vassals  who  held  more  than  one  fee.  If  one  compares  the  account 
of  the  escheated  honor  of  Peverel  in  1211  with  the  account  in  1246 
(Pipe  Roll,  13  John,  m.  2  d;  30  Henry  III,  m.  6  d),  it  will  be  seen 
that  there  has  been  very  little  change.  Only  a  few  of  the  tenants 
hold  less  than  one  fee  each.  Certainly  at  the  opening  of  John's 
reign,  sub-infeudation  had  not  been  carried  to  such  an  extreme  that 
it  would  be  impossible  to  get  military  service  (see  the  account  of 
the  honor  of  Gloucester,  part  of  the  bishopric  of  Lincoln,  and  the 
honor  of  Wallingford;  Rot.  Cane.,  3  John,  pp.  55-56,  278-279,  266-268; 
also  the  account  of  the  honor  of  Boulogne,  Pipe  Roll,  17  John,  m.  1). 

308 


UNDER  JOHN  AND  HENRY  III 

paigns  were  like  raids ;  it  was  not  necessary  to  assemble 
the  whole  host,  a  fact  which  would  tend  to  reduce  the 
number  of  knights  which  each  tenant  furnished.  In 
France,  campaigns  required  more  men,  but  the  long 
period  of  service  which  was  often  demanded38  helped 
equally  to  reduce  the  quotas  which  the  king  took  from 
his  vassals.  The  increase  in  the  value  of  a  knight's  service 
as  shown  by  the  increase  in  his  wage  also  served  to  keep 
down  the  quotas.  The  ordinary  pay  under  Henry  II  was 
eight  pence  a  day.39  In  the  thirteenth  century  it  had 
risen  to  two  shillings,40  and  in  some  cases  it  might  be 
more.  The  knights  whom  the  abbot  Samson  hired  in  1198 
were  to  receive  three  shillings  a  day.41  The  abbot  of 
St.  Albans  hired  two  knights  and  eight  sergeants  in  1257 
and  paid  nearly  100  marks.42  In  1258,  the  knights  of  the 
abbot  of  Ramsey  received  four  shillings  a  day  for  their 
expenses.43  This  increase  in  the  wages  of  the  knight 
was  in  part  due  to  the  general  rise  in  prices  which  took 
place  in  the  thirteenth  century,  but  it  was  in  great  meas- 
ure due  to  the  more  elaborate  equipment  required.44 

At  the  average  rate  of  two  shillings  a  day,  the  wages 
for  forty  days  would  be  six  marks  (£4),  a  much  higher 
amount  than  any  scutage  and  higher  than  the  average 
rate  of  the  fine.45  Yet  it  may  be  questioned  whether  the 
feudal  term  of  service  should  be  thus  limited.46  Almost 

38  The  campaign  in  France  might  last  eight  months,  as  in  1214. 

39  Round,  Feudal  England,  pp.  271-273. 

40  The  pay  of  the  knights   furnished  in   1205   was   two  shillings. 
Tenants  had  knights  in  the  expedition  of  1214  at  this  rate  (Rot.  Litt. 
Glaus.,  II,  87a)  ;  in  1230,  the  king  was  to  support  knights  in  France 
at  two  shillings  (Pat.  Rolls,  II,  403). 

41  Chron.  Joe.  de  Brak.,  p.  63. 

42  Matthew  Paris,  VI,  374,  438. 

43  Maitland,  Manorial  Courts,  pp.  60-62. 

44  Morris,  p.  49. 

45  E.g.  above,  pp.  23,  36,  48,  65,  71,  185. 

46  "Even  the  limit  of  forty  days  seems  to  have  existed  rather  in 

309 


STUDIES  IN  TAXATION 

all  of  the  campaigns  of  John  and  Henry  III  lasted  more 
than  forty  days  and  some,  particularly  those  in  France, 
much  longer.  Thus  in  practice,  the  knights  must  have 
served  more  than  forty  days.  In  1198  the  abbot  Samson 
provided  his  knights  with  the  expenses  for  this  period, 
but  he  was  advised  to  fine  with  the  king,  else  he  would 
have  to  pay  the  wages  of  the  knights  throughout  the  war, 
which,  it  was  said,  might  last  a  year.47  That  there  was 
no  set  term  of  service  is  further  shown  by  two  cases.  In 
1212  the  four  knights  of  the  abbey  of  Ramsey  were  to  be 
supported  by  their  fellow  tenants  as  long  as  they  were 
in  the  king's  service.48  In  1213,  the  host  had  been  sum- 
moned in  April  to  resist  an  expected  invasion  by  Philip, 
whose  fleet  was  destroyed  in  May.  In  August,  John 
proposed  to  the  knights  to  invade  Poitou,  but  they  com- 
plained that  their  means  had  already  been  exhausted  and 
refused  to  go  unless  their  expenses  were  paid.  John  was 
enraged  at  this  demand  and  refused  it.49  This  is  the  time 
when  some  barons  claimed  that  they  did  not  owe  service 
in  France.50  Neither  demand  seems  to  represent  the 
general  practice.  After  the  middle  of  the  century,  there 
are  cases  which  speak  of  forty  days  as  the  period  of 
service.51  Despite  this  fact,  it  seems  probable  that  John 
and  Henry  III  did  not  as  a  rule  regard  that  period  as 

theory  than  in  practice  and  its  theoretic  existence  can  hardly  be 
proved  for  England  out  of  any  authoritative  document"  (Pollock  and 
Maitland,  I,  254). 

47  Chron.  Joe.  de  Brak.,  p.  63.    He  did  so  for  £100. 

48  Rot.  Litt.  Glaus.,  I,  123a. 
4»  Wend.,  Ill,  261. 

5(>  Cogg.,  p.  167. 

5i  In  1258,  the  knights  of  the  abbey  of  Ramsey  were  to  serve  forty 
days  and  to  receive  four  shillings  a  day  (Maitland,  Manorial  Courts, 
pp.  60-62);  in  1267,  they  served  for  the  same  period  (Vincent,  p. 
116,  quoting  Patent  Roll,  52  Henry  III);  in  1277,  the  knights  of  St. 
Albans  served  for  eight  weeks,  for  forty  days  at  their  own  expense 
and  for  the  rest  of  the  time  in  the  pay  of  the  king  (Oesta  Abbatum, 
I,  435).  Other  cases  are  given  in  Morris,  pp.  69,  70,  75,  132,  137. 

310 


UNDER  JOHN  AND  HENRY  III 

the  limit  of  service,52  though  they  had  no  right  to  demand 
unlimited  service  from  their  vassals.  That  John  made 
special  arrangements  with  tenants  whereby  they  were  to 
serve  for  long  periods  would  prove  this  to  be  the  case.53 
The  service  should  be  reasonable. 

52  Their    campaigns    were   not   limited   to    forty    days.     See    also, 
above,  pp.  21,  77,  96,  101,  109,  137,  143,  149,  173,  181,  196,  244,  284. 
Notice  also  the  case  of  the  abbot  of  St.  Albans  in  the  war  against  the 
barons  after  the  battle  of  Evesham.     Henry  III  summoned  the  host 
to  meet  at  the  feast  of  St.  Lucy  the  Virgin  (December  13) ;  the  abbot 
sent  his  knights  with  twenty  horses  and  they  remained  with  the  army 
(though  apparently  without  fighting)  from  December  13  till  the  feast 
of  St.  Vincent  (January  22),  or  just  forty  days.    The  service  however 
was  not  concluded.    The  king  demanded  sixty  marks  per  knight  from 
those  who  wished  to  retire:  "Cumque  ibidem  a  festo  S.  Luciae  usque  ad 
festum  S.  Vicentii  proximum  sequens  cum  xx  equis  dies   (sic)   con- 
tinuassent,  in  multis  expensis  et  angustiis,  dominus  rex  pro  quolibet 
milite  Ix  marcas  exegit  a  viris  religionis  servitium  militare  debentibus, 
et  pro  militibus  finem  facere  volentibus"  (Chron.  Will,  de  Rishanger, 
p.  50). 

53  The  following  case  is  cited  in  Pollock  and  Maitland,  I,  255,  as 
possible  evidence  that  the  king  had  the  right  to  demand  longer  ser- 
vice than   forty  days,  if  he  paid  wages   for  it:  "Rex  B.   de  Podio, 
major!  Engolism'  et  G.  de   Nevill'  camerario,  R.   de   Faya,  E.  de 
Chawurt',  Petro  de  Faya,  salutem.     Mandamus  vobis  quod  cum  ter- 
minurn  militum  nostrorum  qui  nobiscum  sunt  trans  fretaturi  venerint 
de  tempore  quo  nobis  ad  custum  suum  servire  debent  juxta  scriptum 
quod   inde   habetis   eos   de   denariis    nostris    quos    ad   hoc    recepistis 
pacari    faciatis   tamquam   si   essent  in   Pictavia"    (Rot.  Litt.   Claus., 
I,  117b).     There  is  no  mention  specifically  of  the  forty  days,  but 
the   statement,   "the   time   during  which   they  ought   to   serve   us   at 
their  own  cost,"  may  refer  to  that  period.     The  men  to  whom  the 
writ  was  addressed  were  leaders  of  an  expedition  going  to  Poitou 
(ibid.,  p.  117a),  and  the  knights  whom  they  were  to  pay  were  the 
men  with  them,  not  knights  with  the  king.     If  these  knights  were 
tenants   performing   their   service   and   if   the    period   refers    to   the 
forty  days,  then  payment  for  service  beyond  the  forty  days  was  a 
regular   custom.      For   so   common   is    it   that    the    leaders    carry    a 
scriptum,  a  list  of  the  knights  with  the  wages   (see  ibid.,  pp.  185a, 
188b,   192b,  for  three  examples  of  a  scriptum  in  this  sense).     Why 
then  should  the  king  refuse  to  pay  the  expenses  of  the  knights  in 
1213  and  be  enraged  at  the  demand?     In  the  expedition  to  Ireland 
in   1210,  the  king  made  many  payments  to  knights  with  him,  but 

311 


STUDIES  IN  TAXATION 

The  king  therefore  continued  to  insist  on  the  perform- 
ance of  service  by  his  military  tenants,  great  and  small. 
In  doing  so,  he  was  only  partly  successful.  The  greater 
tenants  served  but  with  reduced  contingents.  Some 
tenants  did  not  serve  at  all,  but  compounded  each  time, 
though  not  necessarily  for  scutage  only.  It  is  clear  that 
the  tenant  had  acquired  no  right  to  compound  at  will. 
Further,  since  the  king  did  not  allow  the  development 
of  this  right  and  his  armies  of  tenants  were  often  not 
large  enough  for  his  needs,  it  is  evident  that  he  preferred 
the  service  to  the  money.  Hence  it  follows  that  the  com- 
mutation of  service  into  money  was  not  a  custom  favored 
by  the  king  in  the  first  half  of  the  thirteenth  century,  but 
was  forced  on  him  by  conditions  over  which  he  had  no 
control.84 

they  were  loans,  not  wages,  and  were  made  at  irregular  intervals, 
before  and  after  the  forty  days  had  expired  (Rot.  Lib.,  p.  172^.). 
It  seems  possible  that  those  knights  mentioned  in  the  writ  above  from 
the  Close  Roll  were  mercenaries  who  had  agreed  to  serve  for  a 
certain  period  at  their  own  cost.  John  led  no  general  expedition 
to  Gascony  in  1212,  though  he  seems  to  have  been  thinking  of  one 
toward  the  end  of  June  (Rot.  Litt.  Glaus.,  I,  130b);  the  writ 
discussed  above  was  issued  May  23.  John  had  different  kinds 
of  arrangements  with  hired  knights.  English  tenants  were  granted 
favors  (usually  pardon  of  a  debt)  in  return  for  which  they  were 
to  serve  the  king  for  a  long  period,  at  their  own  cost,  and  this 
without  regard  to  the  service  owed  for  their  fees  (see  note  18). 
In  1213,  Hugh  de  Fornes  of  Flanders  was  to  furnish  five  knights; 
they  were  to  be  sent  to  England  ad  custum  suum,  they  were  to  serve 
John  for  120  days  and  then  were  to  be  sent  back  to  Flanders  ad 
custum  nostrum  (i.e.  at  John's  cost).  Hugh  was  also,  if  necessary, 
to  furnish  500  or  1,000  sergeants  "et  a  die  quo  ultimo  a  portu  reces- 
serint  trans fretantes  in  Angliam  erunt  ad  liberaciones  nostras  dum 
fuerint  in  servicio  nostro"  (Rot.  Litt.  Pat.,  p.  98b).  There  is  men- 
tion of  Flemish  knights  who  held  feoda  of  John  (i.e.  money  fees) 
in  return  for  which  they  did  him  a  certain  amount  of  service:  "nobis 
faciunt  servicium  quod  nobis  facere  debent";  "veniatis  ad  faciendum 
nobis  servicium  que  nobis  debetis"  (ibid.,  pp.  lib,  12a,  26b;  Rot. 
Litt.  Glaus.,  I,  183a). 

s*  This  would  not  be  true  of  those  campaigns  in  which  the  king 
summoned  knights  simply  as  an  excuse  to  raise  money. 

312 


UNDER  JOHN  AND  HENRY  III 

Before  discussing  the  scutages  of  John  and  Henry  III, 
something  should  be  said  about  the  account  of  the  scutage 
as  rendered  in  the  Pipe  Roll.  That  account  falls  into 
two  parts :  first,  the  portion  containing  the  names  of  the 
men  who  were  charged  with  scutage  or  fine;  secondly, 
that  containing  the  names  of  the  men  who  received  writs 
of  quittance  with  the  title  "Isti  habent  brevia  de  quietan- 
tia."  The  latter  were  the  tenants  who  had  performed 
their  service  and  hence  were  excused  from  any  money 
payment.55  The  men  whose  names  appear  in  the  roll  were 
always  the  tenants  in  chief,  never  the  rear-vassals,  except 
in  cases  when  the  honor  was  in  hand.58  Consequently  when 
a  tenant  was  entered  as  acquitted,  his  land  paid  nothing, 
as  far  as  we  can  judge  from  the  evidence  of  the  Pipe  Roll.87 
Similarly,  the  fine  or  scutage  charged  against  the  tenant 
is  all  that  appears  against  any  of  his  lands.58  Taking  the 
men  who  were  quit  and  the  men  who  were  charged  with 

ss  A  comparison  of  the  Scutage  Roll  with  the  names  of  those  in  the 
Pipe  Roll  who  are  entered  as  having  writs  of  quittance  shows  that 
this  is  true  in  the  main.  Occasionally  a  tenant  who  fined  is  entered 
as  quit  "per  finem,"  but  usually  those  who  fine  are  entered  in  the 
part  of  the  roll  above  the  list  of  writs  of  quittance. 

58  E.  g.,  in  1201,  the  tenants  of  the  honor  of  Gloucester  appear  in 
the  roll  (Rot.  Cane.,  p.  55).  After  Isabella  had  been  re-endowed 
and  married  to  the  earl  of  Essex,  only  the  tenant  in  chief  appears 
(Pipe  Roll,  16  John,  Glouc.,  m.  5  d).  The  custodian  might  account 
for  an  honor  as  if  he  were  tenant  in  chief,  and  in  that  case  his  name 
only  appears;  e.g.  Guido  de  Chancels  accounts  for  the  scutage  of 
Wales  of  the  honor  of  Gloucester  as  if  he  were  the  tenant  in  chief 
(Pipe  Roll,  13  John,  m.  17  d). 

57  Thus  a  tenant  is  entered  as  quit  in  the  different  counties  where 
he  holds  fees;  see  above,  pp.  28,  50,  58,  73. 

ss  That  is,  the  tenant  in  chief  and  his  vassals  will  not  be  charged 
with  scutage  or  fine.  It  is  true  that  the  tenant  in  chief  may  be 
charged  in  more  than  one  county.  Sometimes,  the  amount  charged 
in  any  given  county  will  be  paid  elsewhere;  sometimes  it  will  be 
entered  as  paid  in  that  same  county,  but  in  any  case,  the  tenant  will 
not  pay  for  the  same  fees  twice  over  (see  above,  pp.  29,  51,  59,  74). 

313 


STUDIES  IN  TAXATION 

fine  or  scutage,  the  roll  gives  a  fairly  complete  account 
of  the  fees  in  the  kingdom.59  A  comparison  of  the  scu- 
tage accounts  given  in  the  Pipe  Rolls  of  Henry  II,  Rich- 
ard, John,  and  Henry  III  shows  that  the  entries  become 
fuller,  more  exact,  and  more  detailed  as  time  goes  on  till 
near  the  end  of  John's  reign  '(1211),  when  the  account 
appears  in  a  form  which  remains  practically  the  same 
throughout  the  reign  of  his  son.60  It  might  be  suggested 
that  in  the  matter  of  the  fines,  the  Pipe  Roll  would  be 
defective  and  that  it  would  contain  only  the  scutages, 
while  the  fines  would  appear  mainly  in  the  Fine  Roll.  This 
is  not  so.  Practically  all  the  fines  in  the  Fine  Roll  are 
found  entered  in  the  Pipe  Roll  also.61 

A  distinction  should  be  noted  in  the  financial  levies  of 
the  time,  which  is  often  ignored,  viz.,  between  aids  and 
scutages.  The  aid  could  not  be  levied  by  the  king  with- 
out the  consent  of  the  vassal;  it  was  not  obligatory  on 
the  latter  to  pay  it  if  the  king  asked  for  it.  If  he  did 
pay  it,  he  made  in  theory  a  free  grant  to  the  king  as  lord. 
It  might  take  the  form  of  a  tax  on  the  ploughland,  as  in 

09  This  is  true  for  all  of  John's  scutages  except  that  of  1204  and 
the  scutage  of  Ireland  which  are  incomplete. 

oo  Under  Henry  II,  the  men  who  are  taxed,  not  those  who  receive 
writs  of  quittance,  are  the  ones  entered  in  the  roll.  In  6  Richard, 
the  latter  begin  to  be  entered.  The  number  of  fees  which  each  man 
holds  is  not  given.  Such  an  entry  would  not  be  necessary  when 
scutage  only  was  paid.  Under  Richard,  the  reports  of  sheriffs  con- 
cerning fees  in  their  counties  which  hold  of  baronies  whose  heads 
lie  in  other  counties  are  entered  in  the  roll.  Under  John  the  account 
is  thus  rendered  in  two  parts:  first  the  tenants  who  are  charged  with 
fines  or  scutage  and  second  those  who  are  quit;  sometimes  the  number 
of  fees  is  given  but  there  is  no  regularity  about  it.  Beginning  with 
the  roll  of  13  John,  the  practice  is  set  up  of  entering  the  number 
of  fees  after  the  name  of  each  tenant  whether  he  is  charged  with 
scutage  or  is  quit.  This  remains  the  custom  throughout  the  reign 
of  Henry  III. 

«i  Two  of  the  years  in  which  there  are  a  large  number  of  fines 
entered  in  the  Fine  Roll  are  1201  and  1230.  Nearly  all  are  also  found 
in  the  Pipe  Roll. 

314 


UNDER  JOHN  AND  HENRY  III 

the  carucage ;  of  a  tax  on  personal  property ;  of  a  tax 
on  the  knight's  fee,  as  in  the  aid  of  1217;  or  of  a  lump 
sum,  not  based  on  property.  On  the  other  hand,  scutage 
in  the  strict  sense  of  the  word  was  a  composition  for 
military  service  and  as  such  was  owed.  If  the  king  waged 
a  campaign,  he  was  entitled  by  law  to  a  scutage  at  least 
from  such  tenants  as  had  failed  to  come  to  the  host.  The 
custom  of  taking  scutage  was  well  established  before  the 
close  of  the  twelfth  century;  it  was  levied  in  connection 
with  military  expeditions,  and  was  usually  taken  at  the 
close  of  the  campaign.  It  was  in  general  the  full  commu- 
tation for  service,  and  the  customary  rate  was  £1  (lH 
marks)  or  less  per  fee. 

The  occasion  for  the  scutage  remained  the  same.  John 
usually  observed  the  form  though  not  the  spirit.  In  1199, 
a  truce  was  concluded  as  soon  as  the  king  landed  in  June 
and  fighting  did  not  begin  till  September.62  In  1201, 
there  was  no  fighting  at  all.63  In  1204  and  1205,  the  host 
was  summoned,  but  was  not  despatched;  in  the  latter 
year,  a  picked  body  of  knights  was  sent.64  On  all  these 
occasions  scutage  was  taken.  In  1209,  the  host  was  sum- 
moned and  the  king  led  it  against  the  Scots.  The  diffi- 
culty was  settled  without  fighting,  but  a  scutage  was 
taken.65  On  other  occasions,  the  scutage  was  levied  for 
campaigns  which  were  actually  waged  by  the  king  at  the 
head  of  the  host.66  Henry  III  only  once  took  a  scutage 
to  which  he  was  not  fully  entitled  by  feudal  law.67 

62  See  above,  p.  21. 

03  Hov.,  IV,  161,  164;  Norgate,  John  Lackland,  p.  81. 
84  See  above,  pp.  64,  69.     Some  tenants  seem  also  to  have  gone  in 
1204. 

65  See  above,  p.  94. 

66  In  1202,  1203,  1206,  1210,  1211,  1214  (see  above,  pp.  46,  53,  77, 
96,  101,  109). 

67  In  1231,  after  the  campaign  in  Poitou,  for  which  he  had  taken 
a  scutage  once  (see  above,  p.  191). 

315 


STUDIES  IN  TAXATION 

Several  of  John's  scutages  were  put  in  charge  probably 
when  the  host  was  summoned,  or  soon  after,  and  not  at 
the  close  of  the  campaign ;  but  this  was  not  an  invariable 
rule.68  Henry  III,  however,  put  the  scutage  in  charge 
at  or  near  the  close  of  the  campaign,  except  in  1229  and 
1242,  on  the  occasion  of  the  expeditions  to  France.69  At 
other  times  he  levied  fines  for  exemption  from  service 
during  the  campaign.70  In  many  cases,  therefore,  the 
baron  knew  what  the  rate  of  scutage  would  be.  In  others, 
if  he  did  not  perform  his  service,  he  would  naturally 
expect  to  pay  scutage  at  least,  though  this  was  not  cer- 
tain, for  the  rule  was  not  invariable  that  a  scutage  should 
be  taken  for  each  campaign.71  The  account  was  entered 
in  the  Pipe  Roll  of  the  financial  year  when  the  scutage 
was  put  in  charge.72  The  advantage  to  the  king  of  levying 
scutage  and  fines  at  the  opening  of  the  campaign  is 
obvious.  Not  only  would  he  be  able  to  use  part  of  the 
money  in  carrying  on  the  war,  but  he  would  have  more 
complete  control  of  the  right  to  fix  the  rate  and  deter- 
mine the  circumstances  under  which  scutage  was  due. 

The  rate  too  was  raised  by  John.  His  first  scutage 
was  placed  at  two  marks  per  fee,  "a  change  which  caused 

es  In  1209  the  scutage  seems  to  have  been  levied  after  the  host  had 
met  that  of  the  king  of  Scots  and  a  treaty  had  been  made;  in  1211, 
the  scutage  of  Wales  was  taken  at  the  close  of  the  campaign  (see 
above,  pp.  94,  101). 

«9  See  above,  pp.  184,  227. 

TO  See  above,  pp.  206,  240,  255,  286. 

71  It  was  always  taken  under  John.     Under  Henry  III,  none  was 
taken  for  the  campaign  against  Richard  Marshal  in  1233;  none  for 
the  march  against  Wales  in  1241,  Scotland  in  1244,  or  Gascony,  1253 
(see  above,  pp.  206,  220,  240,  256). 

72  The  scutage  of  Scotland  was  spread  over  the  three  years,  1209- 
1211.     The  siege  of  Bedford  ended  in  the  middle  of  August,   1224, 
yet  the  scutage  was  entered  in  the  roll  of  that  year.     If  a  campaign 
did  not  end  till  the  close  of  September,  the  account  was  not  entered 
till  the  following  year  (see  above,  pp.  94,  151,  196,  197). 

816 


UNDER  JOHN  AND  HENRY  III 

unfavorable  comment,"73  and  later  it  was  raised  to  three 
marks.74  During  the  minority  of  Henry  III,  the  rate 
fell,75  but  rose  again  to  three  marks  in  1229,  a  figure 
which  became  common.  Though  the  change  was  thus 
considerable,  it  is  clear  that  the  king  was  not  unrestricted 
in  determining  the  rate. 

The  most  important  question  in  connection  with  the 
scutage  is  its  character,  for  with  it  the  king  began  to 
take  fines,  "pro  passagio,"  "ne  trans fretent,"  which 
usually  included  the  scutage,  but  were  often  distinct  from 
it,  that  is,  were  in  addition  to  it.76  We  should  remember 
that  the  king  was  also  trying  to  get  as  much  service  as 
possible  out  of  his  English  tenants.  Was  the  scutage, 
therefore,  especially  in  John's  reign,  transformed  to  any 
extent  into  a  general  tax  on  the  rear-vassals  while  at  the 
same  time  the  king  was  getting  the  service  of  the  fee  from 
the  tenant  in  chief,  either  in  knights,  or  by  a  fine?77  It 
is  hard  to  believe  that  even  John,  strong  though  he  was, 
could  carry  through  such  a  financial  and  military  revolu- 
tion as  is  implied  by  this  query.  Though  examples  of  a 
double  contribution  will  be  pointed  out,  it  seems  unques- 
tionable that  they  were  exceptions,  and  that  in  general 
scutage  did  not  become  a  general  tax,  but  retained  its 
original  character  as  the  composition  for  service,  though 
often  not  the  only  composition.  To  put  it  another  way, 
the  tenants  who  performed  their  service,  or  paid  a  fine, 

73  "gravis  exactio  scutagii" ;  "nunquam  amplius  quam  viginti  solid! 
ad  scutum  exigerentur"  (Cogg.,  pp.  101,  102). 

74  Ireland  and  Poitou  (see  above,  pp.  98,  112). 

75  Biham  10s;  Wales,  Bedford,  and  Kerry,  two  marks. 

7*  The  fines  begin  to  appear  under  Richard  (Red  Book,  I,  99, 
102,  115;  Madox,  I,  676,  n.  t).  They  perhaps  go  back  to  Henry  II. 

77  "And  so  in  the  thirteenth  century  the  king,  while  he  is  exacting 
military  service  or  fines  from  his  tenants  in  chief,  will  also  collect 
scutage  from  their  military  tenants.  Theoretically  he  is  not  entitled 
to  be  paid  for  the  same  thing  twice  over"  (Pollock  and  Maitland, 
I,  270). 

317 


STUDIES  IN  TAXATION 

made  no  additional  payment  for  their  fees  to  the  king. 
Unless  the  Pipe  Rolls  are  far  more  defective  than  they 
seem  to  be,  they  offer  good  evidence  that  scutage  did  not 
become  a  general  tax.  The  total  number  of  fees  on  which 
scutage  might  be  paid  was  about  6,500.  If  scutage  were 
a  general  tax,  the  number  of  fees  taxed  should  remain 
approximately  the  same  and  should  approach  6,500.  But 
this  is  not  the  case.  The  number  never  rose  above  4,000 
and  varied  from  one  levy  to  another,  apparently  accord- 
ing to  the  amount  of  service  which  the  tenants  performed. 
Furthermore,  the  tenants  who  are  not  charged  with  scu- 
tage or  fine  in  the  roll  are  not  left  unaccounted  for.  They 
also  appear  in  the  roll  as  receiving  writs  of  quittance.78 
It  might  be  suggested  that  the  king  took  a  fine  or  service 
from  the  tenant  in  chief  and  in  addition  collected  scutage 
from  the  rear-vassals,  but  the  accounts  of  scutage  in  the 
Pipe  Roll  support  no  such  theory.79 

When  we  turn  to  individual  cases  we  get  the  same  result. 
Tenants  who  performed  their  service  were  acquitted  of 
part  or  all  their  scutage  and  received  writs  de  scutagio 
habendo.  Such  a  writ  exempted  the  whole  holding  of  the 
tenant  from  paying  scutage  to  the  exchequer.80  If  a 

78  It  should  be  observed  that  in  the  account  of  most  scutages 
a  fairly  complete  statement  of  the  fees  of  the  kingdom  is  rendered, 
either  charged  with  scutage  or  fine  or  receiving  writs  of  quittance; 
and  that  the  writ  of  quittance  means  that  the  tenant  in  chief  had 
performed  his  service  and  was  allowed  to  have  his  scutage  for  his 
own  use  (see  above,  pp.  18,  313,  314). 

7»  If  we  add  together  the  sums  charged  against  tenants  in  chief 
who  hold  five  or  more  fees  and  to  this  sum  add  the  scutage  charged 
against  fees  on  honors  in  hand  which  can  be  identified,  and  then 
subtract  this  total  from  the  total  amount  of  the  scutage  proper 
which  appears  in  the  roll,  the  remainder  will  be  far  too  small  to 
represent  anything  like  a  general  payment  by  rear-vassals.  Even 
this  remainder  could  not  all  be  charged  against  rear-vassals,  for 
from  it  would  have  to  be  deducted  scutage  charged  against  tenants 
in  chief  holding  fewer  than  five  fees  each  (e.  g.  above,  pp.  22,  23,  the 
account  of  the  first  scutage  of  John). 

so  See  above,  pp.  24,  36,  40,  48,  50,  55,  58,  and  index:  service. 

318 


UNDER  JOHN  AND  HENRY  III 

tenant  did  not  obtain  a  writ  at  first,  he  might  be  charged 
with  scutage ;  later,  when  he  secured  the  writ,  his  account 
would  be  written  off.81  Sometimes  part  of  the  scutage 
was  collected;  if  so,  it  was  either  returned  to  the  tenant 
or  credited  to  some  account  of  his  other  than  scutage.82 
Tenants  who  fined  or  who  paid  only  scutage  were  allowed 
to  collect  scutage  from  their  vassals  and  nothing  but  that 
fine  or  scutage  was  paid  from  all  their  holding  to  the 
exchequer.83  A  tenant  might  hold  fees  in  other  counties 
than  where  the  head  of  his  barony  lay.  If  the  sheriff  of 
the  county  in  which  these  detached  fees  lay  collected  the 
scutage  from  them,  either  from  the  rear-vassals  or  from 
the  tenant's  steward,  the  amount  collected  was  credited 
to  the  tenant  in  chief  in  the  main  account  of  his  honor. 
This  shows  that  a  double  payment  was  not  made  by  the 
tenants  and  his  vassals.84  Then  there  are  several  cases 
of  men  who  are  charged  with  scutage  in  the  roll.  Appar- 
ently they  protested,  for  an  inquest  was  held  to  determine 
whose  tenants  they  were.  It  was  found  that  they  were 
rear-vassals  and  accordingly  they  were  excused  from  pay- 
ing to  the  exchequer.85  Thus  the  king's  courts  protected 
the  sub-tenant  from  such  an  extension  of  the  royal 
authority.  Again,  when  the  tenant  in  chief  opposed  the 
payment  of  scutage,  the  sheriff  did  not  collect  it,  but 
distrained  him  to  compel  payment.86  The  tenant  might 
be  disseized  if  he  refused  to  pay,  as  in  the  case  of  the 
archbishop  of  York.87  Occasionally  the  tenant  fined  in  an 

si  See  above,  pp.  25,  37,  note  99 ;  51,  73,  note  313. 

82  See  above,  pp.  50,  51,  note  181;  56,  58,  67. 

83  See  above,  pp.  27,  28,  42,  60,  68,  75,  76,  80. 
s*  See  above,  pp.  28,  40,  41,  51,  59,  74,  80,  103. 
ss  See  above,  pp.  52,  59,  67,  74,  81,  100,  116. 

86  "Henricus  (de  Pinkeni)  promisit  coram  justic'  quod  acquietabit 
averia  sua  que  capta  sunt  pro  scutagio;  recognovit  enim  quod  idem 
debet"  (Rot.  Curios  Regis,  II,  43,  anno  1  John). 

87  Rot.   Litt.   Claus.,   I,   lib.     Cecilia   de   Crevequor   was   disseized 
"eo  quod  proinde  finem  (pro  passagio)  .  .  .  non  fecerat"  and  it  was 

319 


STUDIES  IN  TAXATION 

unusual  way.  He  himself  paid  no  scutage,  but  allowed 
the  king  to  collect  it  from  all  his  military  tenants.  Here 
the  collection  by  the  king  from  the  rear-vassal  seems 
unusual.88  Stewards  of  tenants  in  chief  continually 
appeared  before  the  exchequer  to  answer  for  the  scutage 
of  their  lords89  and  secured  the  king's  aid  to  distrain  the 

ordered  "quod  (vicecomes)  faciat  ei  habere  scutagium  suum  de  feodis 
militum  que  de  domino  rege  tenet  in  capite  in  balliva  sua."  She 
had  fined  in  40  marks  as  a  result  of  the  disseizin  (Rot.  Obi.,  p.  302). 
Notice  that  the  king  had  not  collected  from  the  rear-vassals. 

88  "Fulco    Painel    dat    domino    regi    scutagia    septime    militum    et 
aliorum  militum  si  plures  de  domino  rege  teneat  in  capite  pro  pas- 
sagio    suo    et    passagio    praedictorum    militum.      Et    mandatum    est 
vicecomitibus  .  .  .  quod  colligant  scutagia  de  feodis  omnium  militum 
suorum  quos  de  domino  rege  tenet  in  capite"    (Rot.   Obi,  p.   131). 
"A  Willelmo  comite  de  Vernun   (earl  of  Devon)   nullum  scutagium 
requirendum  est  in  aliqua  summa  quia  finivit  cum  rege  pro  licentia 
remanendi  ut  rex  capiat  de  omnibus  militibus  suis  scutagium  suum 
quos  tenet  de  rege  in  capite"  (Rot.  Cane.,  p.  263).    That  these  cases 
mean  that  the  king  takes  from  all  the  knights  whom  the  tenant  in 
chief  had  enfeoffed  and  not  merely   from  the  servitium  debitum  is 
shown  by  the  case  of  the  earl  of  Devon  who  this  year  in  another 
part  of  the  roll  paid  on  fifteen  knights  "quos  recognoscit"  and  forty- 
five  knights  "quos  non  recognoscit   (Rot.  Cane.,  p.  26).     If  the  col- 
lection from  the  rear-vassals  by  the  king  comes  in,  it  is  under  John. 
What  the  abbot  Samson  feared  in  1198,  if  he  failed  to  satisfy  the 
king  was  that  he  would  be  disseized,  not  that  the  king  would  collect 
scutage  from  his  men  (Chron.  Joe.  de  Brak.,  p.  63). 

89  "Simon   de   Charterai   senescallus   Willelmi   de   Brause   affidavit 
facere  pacem  de  xxviii  li.   de  secundo  scutagio    (of   Richard)    sicut 
vicecomes  dicit  et  non  venit;  habeat  judicium  senescalli";  "Ricardus 
del  Estre  debet  xvi  sol  et  viii  den.  de  primo  scutagio  regis  Ricardi 
.  .  .  senescallus    ejus    affidavit    facere   pacem   et   non   venit";    Hugo 
de   Morba   senescallus   Henrici   de   Trasci   affidavit   facere   pacem   de 
L  marc,  et  dim.  de  scutagio  suo  sicut  vicecomes  dicit  et  non  venit" 
(Exch.  L.  T.  R.,  bundle  I,  no.  3,  Mem.  Roll,  1  John  m.  19,  17,  19  d). 
"Eustachius   filius   Willelmi   senescallus   Eustachii   de   Vesci   affidavit 
h'  de  .  .  .  xx  li.  de  sexto  scutagio  (of  John)";  "Eadmundus  clericus 
senescalli    Robert!    filii    Walteri    affidavit    facere    pacem  .  .  .  de    xx 
marcis  de  fine  et  de  quater  xx  et  iiii  li.  et  i  marc,  de  scutagio  sexto"; 
"Rogerus   de   Lilleston'   senescallus   comitis   Alberici   affidavit   facere 
pacem   de  .  .  .  Ix  marc,   at   xl   den.   de   iiii   scutagio  .  .  .  et   de   xxx 
marc,  de  scutagio  vi";  "Willelmus  de  Rollest'  senescallus  Jollani  de 

320 


UNDER  JOHN  AND  HENRY  III 

rear-vassals  to  pay  to  their  lords  the  scutage  which  was 
owed  to  the  king.90 

That  the  king  tried  to  get  scutage,  fine,  or  service  out 
of  every  fee  in  England  held  of  him  is  certain.  In  so 
doing,  he  systematized  the  collection  of  the  money  and 
at  times  overstepped  his  rights.  Putting  the  scutage  in 
charge  early  in  the  campaign  made  it  possible  for  him 
to  demand  and  in  some  cases  to  collect  from  rear-vassals 
before  it  was  known  whether  or  not  the  tenant  in  chief 
owed  scutage.91  The  fact  that  rear-vassals  had  to  protest 
against  payment  shows  the  activity  of  the  exchequer. 
Sheriffs  were  ordered  to  report  the  number  of  fees  held 
in  their  counties  by  tenants  in  chief,92  and  the  latter  were 
no  longer  charged  with  their  whole  scutage  in  one  county 
only,  but  were  entered  either  charged  or  acquitted,  in 
each  county  in  which  they  held  fees.  Sometimes  the  whole 
amount  due  was  charged  in  more  than  one  place;  some- 

Nevill'  affidavit  de  ii  marc,  de  vi  scutagio  et  de  xx  sol.  de  vii  scutagio; 
non  venit;  judicium";  "Comes  de  Ferar'  debet  xxxii  marc,  de  vi 
scutagio;  Willelmus  de  Radewar'  senescallus  affidavit  et  non  venit" 
(ibid.,  bundle  1,  no.  4,  Mem.  Roll,  10  John,  m.  4a  d;  m.  8a;  m.  lla 
or  m.  10).  Below,  p.  336. 

90  In  1220,  Melicent  de  Stafford  agreed  with  the  king  that  he  should 
collect  the  arrears  of  scutages  due  on  the  fee  of  Hervey  Bagot  (her 
deceased  husband)  since  the  early  part  of  John's  reign.  The  king 
evidently  had  not  collected  from  the  rear-vassals  (Madox,  I,  680, 
n.  m).  "Episcopus  Line'  debet  scutagia  vii  militum  de  militibus 
quos  non  potest  distringere  de  baillia  de  N.  ut  baillivus  suus  dixit" 
(Exch.  L.  T.  R.  Mem.  Roll,  2  Henry  III,  m.  6  d);  "Rex  vicecomiti. 
Precipimus  tibi  quod  sis  in  auxilium  Willelmo  de  Mowbray  ad 
distringendum  milites  suos  quos  tenet  de  nobis  in  capita  in  balliva 
tua  ad  reddendum  ei  scutagium  Pictaviae  de  feodis  que  ipsi  tenent 
de  eo,  scilicet,  iii  marc,  de  scuto  quia  idem  Willelmus  inde  debet 
respondere"  (ibid.,  7  Henry  III,  m.  13)  ;  similarly  for  the  abbot  of 
Holme  (ibid.,  m.  6  d)  ;  for  the  abbot  of  Peterborough  (ibid.,  6  Henry 
III,  m.  2  d)  ;  for  Margaret  de  Cressy  (ibid.,  8  Henry  III,  m.  4)  ; 
for  the  abbot  of  Westminster  for  the  scutages  of  Biham  and  Bedford 
(ibid.,  9  Henry  III,  m.  2). 

si  See  above,  p.  319,  notes  81,  82. 

92  See  above,  pp.  29,  30,  44,  51,  60. 

321 


STUDIES  IN  TAXATION 

times  the  amount  due  from  the  fees  held  by  each  tenant 
in  each  county  was  charged.93  This  work  of  locating 
the  fees  was  only  partly  carried  out  by  John.  At  the  close 
of  his  reign,  in  1212,  there  was  the  great  inquest  of 
service  to  find  out  the  location  of  the  fees  of  the  tenants 
in  chief  as  well  as  the  total  service  of  the  kingdom.  This 
inquest  did  not  result  in  any  increase  in  the  number  of 
fees  for  which  each  tenant  accounted  at  the  exchequer.9* 

An  indication  that  the  king  got  both  scutage  and  ser- 
vice from  his  direct  tenants  is  to  be  found  in  the  fact  that 
some  tenants  in  chief  performed  their  service  and  were 
charged  with  scutage.95  In  some  of  these  cases  part  of 
the  scutage  may  have  been  legally  due  because  the  tenant 
had  performed  only  part  of  his  service.  Yet  there  were 
unquestionably  times  when  the  king  exacted  not  only  all 
the  scutage  but  some  service  also.96  Moreover,  men  with 
small  holdings  appear  and  disappear  in  the  roll.  Such 
tenants  might  be  taken  to  be  rear-vassals  accounting  for 
scutage  directly  to  the  exchequer  while  their  lords  had 
either  served  or  compounded  elsewhere.  Wherever  they 
can  be  traced,  some  of  these  men  are  found  to  be  sergeants 
while  others  are  indeed  rear-vassals,  but  on  honors  in 
hand.  In  any  case,  the  number  of  fees  which  they  held 
was  too  small  to  represent  a  general  tax  on  knights' 
fees.97  All  this  shows  that  John  was  collecting  his 
scutages  with  great  care  and  that  the  exchequer  was 
locating  fees  owing  scutage  rather  than  making  a  general 
collection  of  the  tax  from  rear-vassals,  in  addition  to 
scutage,  fine,  or  service  from  the  tenant  in  chief. 

The  scutage  at  a  fixed  rate  per  fee  would  not  always 

»3  See  above,  pp.  28,  41,  51,  59,  74. 
»*  See  above,  p.  301. 

95  See  above,  pp.  23,  24,  38,  56. 

96  Ibid. 

97  See  above,  p.  40,  note  126. 

322 


UNDER  JOHN  AND  HENRY  III 

exempt  a  tenant  from  taking  part  in  a  campaign.  From 
many  tenants  John  took  a  larger  amount  than  the  scutage, 
called  a  fine.  All  classes,  great  vassals  and  lesser  vassals, 
lay  tenants  and  clerical  tenants,  paid  fines.98  Each  year 
some  tenants  paid  scutage  and  others  fines ;  the  same 
tenant  paid  fine  one  year  and  scutage  another."  The 
fine  was  usually  a  lump  sum  paid  by  the  tenant  in  chief 
in  return  for  which  he  was  exempted  from  service  and 
was  given  the  right  to  collect  scutage  from  his  tenants.100 
Sometimes,  however,  the  vassal  paid  in  addition  to  his 
scutage  a  fine,101  and  occasionally  the  fine  was  levied  at 
a  fixed  rate  per  fee.102  Legally  the  king  had  warrant 
for  this  extra  demand.  He  was  entitled  to  full  military 
service  from  his  tenants.  If  they  did  not  wish  to  serve, 
they  would  have  to  pay  whatever  sum  he  might  fix  or 
lose  their  lands.  The  sums  which  he  took  in  fines  were 
usually  smaller  than  the  cost  to  the  tenant  of  answering 
the  summons  to  the  host  with  his  full  contingent.  Yet 
as  partial  service  in  the  field  seems  to  have  been  the 
equivalent  of  the  old  servitium  debitum,  the  scutage  was 
probably  regarded  as  a  fair  amount  of  composition,  espe- 
cially as  it  had  been  the  full  composition  before.  There 
can  be  no  doubt  that  the  extra  amount  of  composition 
was  regarded  as  excessive.  At  the  close  of  his  reign  when 
discontent  was  growing,  John  stopped  taking  fines.108 
When  the  barons  were  in  control  of  the  government,  during 

98  With  few  exceptions,  bishops  never  paid  fines. 

wE.g.  Henry  de  Oilli  paid  scutage  in  1199  and  1203  and  a  fine 
of  97  marks  in  1201;  William  Painel  paid  scutage  in  1199  and  1202 
on  15  fees  and  in  1201  a  fine  of  40  marks. 

w  The  fine  is  paid  "ne  transfretet  et  pro  habendo  scutagio  suo," 
"pro  passagio  et  ad  habendum  scutagium  suum." 

101  See  above,  pp.  27,  40,  49,  58,  66,  73,  79. 

102  "Henricus  de  Oilli  r  c  de  97  marcis  de  fine  que  fecit  scilicet 
pro  quolibet  milite  que  tenet  de  rege  3m"  (Rot.  Cane.,  p.  279). 

i°3  No  fines  were  taken  for  the  last  two  scutages,  Wales  and 
Poitou,  and  few  for  the  Scottish  scutage. 

328 


STUDIES  IN  TAXATION 

the  minority   of  Henry  III,  scutage  was   all   that  was 
demanded. 

The  fine  was  not  an  amercement  in  any  sense  different 
from  the  scutage,  not  the  punishment  on  the  tenant  who 
had  failed  to  answer  the  summons  to  the  host  and  had 
stayed  at  home.  It  was  not  the  substitute  for  disseizin 
or  distraint  as  a  means  of  compelling  the  vassal  to  serve.104 
Later  the  two  levies  may  have  been  distinct  in  character,105 
but  in  the  first  half  of  the  thirteenth  century,  the  fine 
was  a  composition  for  service  which  differed  from  the 
scutage  in  form  only.  The  fines  were  levied  at  the  begin- 
ning of  the  campaign  when  the  king  was  gathering  the 
host,  not  at  the  end  when  he  might  be  determining  the 
punishment  to  be  inflicted  on  defaulters.106  Some  of  the 
fines  were  hardly  larger  than  the  scutage  would  have 

10*  The  purpose  of  the  scutage  and  the  fine  was  not  to  punish  the 
tenant  so  that  he  would  not  repeat  the  offence,  but  to  charge  an 
amount  commensurate  with  the  amount  of  service  which  the  king  had 
lost.  It  is  true  that  a  high  rate  of  composition  contains  an  element 
of  amercement,  for  such  a  rate  will  retard  a  tendency  to  commute 
service  into  money.  If  that  element  was  present  in  the  fine,  it  was 
also  present  in  the  scutage,  particularly  among  the  greater  tenants. 
If  Ralph  de  Sumery  who  holds  50  fees  pays  100  marks  scutage  and 
thus  buys  the  exemption  from  service  of  50  knights,  then  his  scutage 
is  a  mere  nominal  composition;  if  he  pays  120  marks  fine  instead 
of  scutage  (see  below,  note  107),  his  fine  is  also  only  nominal.  In 
either  case,  the  tenant  would  gain  by  compounding.  The  point  has 
already  been  made  that  military  service  in  the  thirteenth  century  had 
become  reduced.  If  Ralph  would  have  served  with  only  10  knights 
instead  of  with  50,  then  his  fine  of  120  marks  doubtless  has  an  element 
of  amercement,  but  so  has  the  scutage  of  100  marks. 

105  "In  Edward  I's  day,  the  fine  for  default  is  an  utterly  different 
thing  from  the  scutage"  (Pollock  and  Maitland,  I,  268). 

loe  See  above,  pp.  35,  70,  187,  206,  228,  240,  255. 

The  abbot  of  St.  Edmunds  went  to  the  king  at  the  opening  of  the 
war  and  fined  for  his  service  (Chron.  Joe.  de  Brak.,  p.  63) ;  the  abbot 
of  St.  Albans  in  1265  sent  his  knights  to  the  meeting  of  the  host  under 
two  of  his  officials  to  see  whether  the  king  would  use  them  on  the 
campaign  or  to  fine  (Chron.  Will,  de  Rishanger,  p.  50). 

324 


UNDER  JOHN  AND  HENRY  III 

been,107  and  occasionally  the  scutage  was  called  a  fine.108 
The  fact  should  be  recalled  that  ordinarily  most  of  the 
great  barons  paid  neither  scutage  nor  fine109  for  the  reason 
that  the  king  refused  to  allow  them  to  compound,  pre- 
ferring the  service  to  the  money.  For  a  tenant  to  pay 
scutage  or  fine,  the  king's  permission  was  necessary.110 
That  the  fine  and  scutage  had  different  names  does  not 
mean  that  there  was  anything  different  in  principle 
between  them.  Composition  in  a  lump  sum  was  at  the 
time  new;  it  was  assessed  and  in  part  collected  by  special 
officials.  Naturally  it  was  given  a  different  name.111  The 
separation  of  the  fine  from  the  scutage  suggests  that  the 

107  It  is  possible  to  cite  fines  that  were  enormous  in  comparison 
with  the  full  service  of  the  tenant,  but  with  these  will  be  found  others 
which  are  small.  Notice  such  fines  as  the  following:  Hervey  Bagot, 
20m  fine  and  120m  scutage  on  60  fees  (Pipe  Roll,  4  John,  Staff.) ; 
Doun  Bardolf,  60  marks  fine  on  25  fees  (includes  scutage  at  2m  per 
fee)  (ibid.,  5  John,  Notts,  and  Derby) ;  Geoffrey  Fitz  Hugh  de 
Scalariis,  50m  fine  on  15  fees  (includes  scutage  at  3m  per  fee) 
(ibid.,  14  Henry  III,  Cant,  and  Hunt.);  Simon  de  Beauchamp,  100m 
on  about  45  fees  (Rot.  Cane.,  p.  354) ;  the  earl  of  Warwick,  20m  and 
his  scutage  on  102i£i£  fees  (Pipe  Roll,  4  John,  War.  and  Leic.) ; 
Ralph  de  Sumery,  20m  fine  and  his  scutage  on  50  fees  (ibid.,  7  John, 
Staff.). 

IDS  "Hubertus  filius  Radulfi  r  c  de  30  marcis  de  fine  suo"  (Pipe 
Roll,  7  John,  Notts,  and  Derby,  sixth  scutage) ;  as  he  held  15  fees, 
this  was  really  a  scutage.  "Willelmus  comes  Waren'  120  marc,  de 
fine  pro  passagio  (et)  scutagio,  qui  finis  intravit  per  breve  regis" 
(ibid.,  7  John,  Norf.  and  Suff.);  the  service  of  the  earl  was  60  fees 
and  as  scutage  was  at  the  rate  of  2m,  this  was  scutage.  "Baldwinus 
Waac  r  c  de  20  marcis  de  eodem  (fine  et  scutagio)  qui  finis  intravit 
per  os  justiciar'"  (ibid.,  5  John,  Line.).  He  held  10^  fees  and  the 
rate  of  scutage  was  2m,  so  that  this  was  a  scutage. 

109  See  above,  p.  302. 

no  The  evidence  of  this  has  already  been  mentioned.  It  is  shown 
by  the  use  of  distraint  and  disseizin  to  enforce  service,  by  the  fact 
that  a  tenant  might  have  to  pay  a  fine  instead  of  a  scutage,  and 
by  the  fact  that  tenants  sought  exemption  by  fines  at  the  opening 
of  the  campaign;  see  also  above,  pp.  305-307,  312. 

in  Cf.  the  farm  of  the  county,  the  increment,  and  the  proficuum. 
The  farms  of  some  of  the  counties  were  increased  by  a  sum  called 

325 


STUDIES  IN  TAXATION 

two  differed  in  character.  The  difference  however  was 
merely  one  of  form  and  depended  on  the  bargain  which 
the  tenant  had  made  with  the  king.  Sometimes  the  tenant 
preferred  to  pay  a  lump  sum  in  addition  to  the  scutage; 
sometimes  to  pay  a  sum  which  should  include  the  scutage. 
Both  arrangements  continued  side  by  side  throughout  the 
reigns  of  John  and  his  son.112  Nor  does  the  separation 
mean  that  the  tenant  in  chief  paid  the  fine  personally  while 
the  king  took  a  scutage  from  the  rear-vassals,  unless  there 
was  a  special  agreement,  as  in  the  case  of  the  earl  of 
Devon  in  1201.118 

The  question  may  be  raised  whether  the  heaviest  fines 
were  paid  by  the  greater  or  by  the  lesser  lay  tenants.114 
Taking  the  total  amount  of  the  fines  in  any  given  year, 
it  will  be  found  that  the  rate  was  without  exception  higher 
on  the  lesser  than  on  the  greater  tenants.115  That  is, 
considering  the  fine  as  a  tax  on  the  land  and  measuring 
the  ability  of  the  tenants  to  pay  by  the  number  of  fees 

increment  under  Henry  II;  in  1205,  some  farms  were  increased  by 
another  sum  called  the  proficuum.  Instead  of  calling  the  whole 
sum  the  farm,  each  amount  was  kept  separate  with  its  own  name. 

112  Thus  in  1242,  both  kinds  of  fines  were  made  (see  above,  p.  230) ; 
in  the  scutage  of  1257,  the  last  of  Henry  Ill's  reign,  several  tenants 
fined  as  follows:  "Abbas  de  Abbindon'  similiter  finem  fecit  cum  rege 
pro  servicio  suo  quod  regi  debet  -et  pro  scutagio  suo  habendo ;  habet 
scutagium  suum  in  comitatibus  etc."  The  title  of  the  section  con- 
taining these  names  is  "De  hiis  qui  fecefunt  finem  pro  servicio  suo 
et  pro  scutagio  habendo"  (Scutage  Rolls,  no.  8). 

us  See  above,  p.  39.  Robert  Fitz  Walter  in  1205  fined  in  20 
marks  and  all  his  scutage  which  was  collected  by  himself  (Rot.  Lift. 
Claus.,  I,  43b). 

11*  The  term  fine  is  used  here  to  mean  the  total  amount  of  composi- 
tion charged  against  those  tenants  who  fined,  not  the  amount  over 
and  above  their  scutage.  The  statements  which  follow  in  the  text 
relate  only  to  lay  tenants. 

us  See  above,  pp.  23,  36,  48,  55,  65,  71,  78,  98,  185.  It  is  how- 
ever pos'sible  to  cite  examples  of  fines  on  great  tenants  which  are  as 
high  in  rate  as  the  average  rate  of  fines  on  the  lesser  tenants  (see 
above,  pp.  66,  99,  188,  229). 

326 


UNDER  JOHN  AND  HENRY  III 

which  they  held,  it  will  be  found  that  the  burden  of  the 
fines  always  fell  on  the  lesser  tenants.  But  there  is 
another  phase  of  the  question  to  be  considered.  The  fine 
was  the  composition  for  service  and  the  quotas  which  the 
tenants  led  to  the  host  had  become  reduced.  Now  if  we 
divide  the  amount  of  money  paid  by  a  great  tenant  in 
either  scutage  or  fine  by  the  number  of  knights  which  he 
would  have  supplied  had  he  served,  we  find  that  the  rate 
of  composition  per  knight  furnished  was  very  high  in  the 
scutage  as  well  as  in  the  fine.1"  From  this  point  of  view, 
the  fine  may  have  been  heavier  on  the  greater  than  on 
the  lesser  tenant.  All  the  fines  seem  to  have  become 
heavier  in  John's  reign  as  time  went  on,  till  we  reach  the 
Irish  scutage  when  the  great  barons  paid  very  heavy 
fines  and  the  lesser  tenants  averaged  ten  marks  per  fee.117 
Yet  this  policy  did  not  continue;  after  1210,  John  levied 
no  more  fines  on  the  tenants  as  a  whole.  Why  some  men 
paid  fines  and  others  scutage  is  not  clear.  Perhaps  those 
men  who  were  charged  with  scutage  performed  part 
of  their  service  in  addition,118  or  paid  a  fine  which  is 
nowhere  entered.  Yet  it  might  be  expected  that  John 
would  not  be  able,  indeed  probably  would  not  try,  to 
substitute  at  one  stroke  the  new  way  of  composition  for 
the  old.  Sometimes  the  fine  was  little  greater  than  the 
scutage,  an  indication  that  there  was  a  gradation  in 
composition  beginning  with  the  scutage  and  rising  through 
fines  of  varying  amounts.1" 

In  the  first  four  levies  of  Henry  Ill's  reign,  the  scutage 
was  the  entire  composition  for  service,120  but  in  1229,  the 

us  See  below,  p.  363. 

H7  See  above,  p.  99. 

us  There  are  some  cases  in  which  this  seems  to  be  true  (see  above, 
pp.  24,  38,  99,  286). 

n»  See  above,  p.  324. 

120  Scutages  of  Biham,  Wales,  Bedford,  and  Kerry  (see  above, 
pp.  139,  144,  151,  175).  Perhaps  there  were  some  fines  in  the 

327 


STUDIES  IN  TAXATION 

king  began  to  levy  fines  as  well  as  scutages,  though  not 
as  an  invariable  rule,  for  no  fines  were  levied  in  1231. 121 
Fines  were  taken  for  campaigns  in  which  scutage  did  not 
run,  though  some  of  these  were  afterwards  pardoned.122 
The  levy  of  1253  was  an  aid  to  knight  the  king's  son,  and 
not  a  strict  scutage,  so  that  it  had  no  connection  with 
the  campaign  in  Gascony  of  that  year.  Fines  were  how- 
ever taken  from  tenants  who  did  not  perform  their  ser- 
vice.123 Only  in  1229  and  1242  was  the  number  of  fines 
considerable  that  was  entered  in  the  roll.  As  under  John, 
the  scutage  was  sometimes  the  full  commutation  for  ser- 
vice, though  at  times  a  fine  was  paid  in  addition  and  in 
other  cases  the  scutage  was  replaced  by  a  fine.  In  general, 
tenants  who  had  performed  partial  service  made  no  pay- 
ment at  all.124  It  is  possible  to  quote  examples  of  very 
heavy  fines,  but  as  a  rule,  the  amount  paid  over  and  above 
the  scutage  was  not  as  heavy  as  in  some  of  John's  levies.12' 
As  before,  the  burden  of  the  fines  fell  on  the  lesser  ten- 
ants.126 The  fine  was  collected  at  the  beginning  of  the 
campaign,  thus  showing  that  it  was  not  an  amercement 
on  the  tenant  who  had  failed  to  serve,  but  was  a  commu- 
tation for  the  service,  like  the  scutage.127  Thus  the  scu- 
tage did  not  become  a  general  tax  on  knights'  fees, 
payable  to  the  king,  but  retained  its  original  character 
as  the  commutation  for  service,  though  the  fine  often 
replaced  it.  There  was  however  a  tendency  to  make  the 

campaign  of  Bedford,  but  they  were  not  generally  taken.  The  levy 
of  1217  is  not  here  included,  for  it  was  an  aid,  not  a  scutage  in  the 
strict  sense. 

121  See  above,  p.  191. 

122  See  above,  pp.  206,  240. 

123  See  above,  p.  255.     No  scutage  was  taken  for  that  campaign. 

124  See  above,  pp.  150,  174,  193,  196,  226,  246. 

125  Cf.  the  rate  of  the  fines  in  1229  with  that  of  1210  (see  above,  pp. 
98,  185). 

126  See  above,  p.  185. 

127  See  above,  pp.  187,  206,  228,  255. 

328 


UNDER  JOHN  AND  HENRY  III 

scutage  and  the  fine  different  in  character,  the  former 
to  be  a  tax  on  the  rear-vassals,  the  latter  the  composition 
of  the  tenant  in  chief  for  his  service.  This  tendency  is 
shown  by  the  levy  of  fines  for  campaigns  when  no  scutage 
was  taken  and  by  the  separation  of  the  fine  from  the 
scutage  to  such  an  extent  that  in  1242  a  roll  was  drawn 
up  containing  scutage  only.128 

The  tenant  in  chief  therefore  discharged  his  obligation 
of  military  service  in  one  of  three  ways :  he  performed  the 
service,  he  paid  a  scutage,  or  he  paid  a  fine.129  To  fulfil 
his  duty  to  the  king,  he  relied  on  his  tenants,  for  they 
formed  part  at  least  of  the  men  whom  he  led  to  the  host.130 
If  he  performed  all  his  service,  he  made  no  payment  to 
the  exchequer.  If  he  furnished  what  the  king  considered 
a  reasonable  fraction  of  his  nominal  service,  no  money 
would  be  demanded  of  him.  But  the  matter  did  not  stop 
with  a  settlement  of  this  obligation.  The  king  granted 
the  tenant  in  chief  a  writ  de  scutagio  habendo,  giving  him 
the  power  to  collect  the  scutage  from  his  vassals  and 
instructed  the  sheriff  to  assist  him  with  distraint  in 
obtaining  it.  Tenants  in  chief  who  fined  and  those  who 
paid  scutage  only  received  the  same  writ.  Thus  the 
scutage  fell  back  on  the  rear-vassal.  The  nature  of  the 
obligation  of  these  men  must  be  carefully  stated.  If  the 
rear-vassal  had  performed  his  service,  he  owed  no  scutage, 
whatever  bargain  had  been  made  between  the  king  and 
his  lord.  Sometimes  a  writ  of  scutage  especially  exempted 

128  See  above,  p.  228. 

129  The  tenant  might  fulfil  his  obligation  partly  in  one  way  and 
partly  in  another;  he  might  pay  part  of  his  scutage  and  perform 
part  of  his  service  (see  above,  note  118). 

iso  Disseizin  of  a  rear-vassal  by  his  lord,  Geoffrey  Fitz  Peter,  for 
failure  to  serve  (Rot.  Lift.  Claus.,  I,  148a) ;  see  above,  pp.  307, 
308,  note  35.  Rear-vassals  are  acquitted  of  paying  scutage  to  their 
lords  evidently  because  they  have  performed  their  service  (see  above, 
pp.  140,  175,  195). 


STUDIES  IN  TAXATION 

him.131  He  owed  scutage  not  to  the  king,  but  to  his 
lord.132  Now,  though  the  scutage  was  owed  to  the  lord, 
the  latter  could  not  collect  it  without  a  royal  writ.133  In 
this  way  the  king  had  a  check  on  the  tenants  in  chief. 
But  the  writ  was  important  in  another  way,  for  the  tenant 
sometimes  could  not  force  his  vassals  to  pay  without  the 
king's  aid.134  The  necessity  for  this  assistance  is  shown 
by  the  fact  that  when  there  was  a  dispute  over  the  scu- 
tage between  the  tenant  in  chief  and  his  vassal,  the  case 
had  to  be  brought  before  the  king's  court.  The  baronial 
courts  were  not  sufficiently  powerful.  Thus  when  the 
abbot  Samson  and  his  tenants  quarreled  over  their  liability 
for  scutage,  the  case  was  tried  in  the  royal  court.135  It 
follows  that  the  king  would  not  collect  from  his  tenants 
unless  they  had  collected  from  their  vassals.13*  The 

isi  See  above,  p.  140. 

132  Because  he  owed  service  to  the  lord.  If  he  paid  scutage  to 
the  king,  the  presumption  was  that  the  fee  was  held  of  the  king. 
See  the  case  in  1208  in  which  a  tenant  paid  scutage  to  the  king,  but 
made  homage  to  another.  He  was  summoned  to  court  to  show  by 
what  warrant  he  made  homage  to  another  when  he  made  the  service 
of  the  fee  to  the  king:  "Ricardus  films  Guarneri  affidavit  facere 
pacem  de  20  solidis  de  quinto  scutagio.  Idem  R.  tenet  feodum  de 
Seirico  de  (Lacy?)  unde  reddet  scutagium  ad  scaccarium  et  inde 
fecit  homagium  suum  praedicto  Seirico  de  Lacy.  Et  ideo  datus  est 
ei  dies  ad  clausum  Paschae,  ut  ostendat  quo  waranto  fecerit  homagium 
suum  Seirico  de  feodo  unde  facit  servicium  domino  regi"  (Exch. 
L.  T.  R.,  bundle  1,  no.  4,  m.  8a  or  7). 

iss  This  seems  to  be  shown  by  the  fact  that  the  king  continually 
issued  such  writs.  In  1305,  the  king  was  petitioned  to  grant  the 
barons  these  writs  for  wars  in  which  they  (the  barons)  had  per- 
formed their  service  (Memoranda  de  Parlamento,  p.  122). 

134  See  above,  pp.  31,  note  58;  76,  140,  147,  152,  188,  194,  198,  231, 
235,  248,  321. 

iss  The  abbot  of  Abingdon  sued  Peter  Fitz  Herbert  for  scutage 
(Close  Rolls,  II,  154)  ;  the  bishop  of  Bath  sued  William  de  Ferrar 
who  refused  payment  (ibid.,  I,  512)  ;  cf.  Bracton,  Note  Book,  cases 
190,  202,  664,  1049,  1674,  1687. 

ise  See  the  case  in  1233  in  which  the  tenant  declares  that  he  had 
not  collected  his  scutage  and  the  sheriff  is  ordered  not  to  distrain 

330 


UNDER  JOHN  AND  HENRY  III 

tenant  in  chief  collected  scutage  from  all  the  knights 
whom  he  had  enfeoffed,  but  he  paid  the  exchequer  only 
on  a  customary  number,  usually  only  the  servitium  debi- 
tum  or  the  old  enfeoffment.  Sometimes  therefore  he  made 
a  profit  on  the  scutage.137  By  the  inquests  of  1166,  the 
king  had  tried  to  get  the  benefit  of  the  extra  enfeoffments. 
As  a  rule  he  was  not  successful  in  obtaining  scutage  from 
the  new  enfeoffment,  when  it  exceeded  the  servitium  debi- 
tum.13S  If  however  the  barony  was  in  hand,  the  king 
collected  from  all  the  knights  enfeoffed.13' 

Thus  the  rear-vassal  was  responsible  for  the  scutage, 
but  he  was  not  liable  for  the  part  of  the  fine  which  was 
over  and  above  the  scutage.  Ordinarily  that  came  out 
of  the  coffers  of  the  tenant  in  chief.  What  the  writ  de 
scutagio  habendo  stated  was  that  the  lord  was  to  have 
scutage. 14C  Sometimes  the  rate  was  mentioned,  which  was 
the  same  as  the  rate  of  scutage  of  the  year.141  When  the 
fine  and  the  scutage  were  separated,  the  latter  only  was 
to  be  collected  from  the  rear-vassal.1*2  When  a  rear- 
vassal  was  exempted  by  the  king  from  paying  while  his 
lord  was  charged  with  a  fine,  the  sub-tenant  was  pardoned 
scutage  only  and  that  was  the  amount  deducted  from  his 

him:  "Mandatum  est  vicecomiti  Lincoln'  quod  non  distringat  Hugo- 
nem  de  NevilF  pro  scutagio  exercitus  Pictaviae  post  etc.  reddendo 
de  feodis  militurn  que  de  rege  tenet  in  capite  in  balliva  sua  de  quo 
colligendo  non  habuit  breve  regis,  nee  illud  collegit,  ut  dicit"  (Close 
Rolls,  II,  201);  see  above,  pp.  104,  195,  321,  note  90. 

137  Thus  in  1198,  the  abbot  Samson  owed  the  service  of  40  knights 
to  the  king  and  tried  to  collect  scutage  on  50  knights  whom  he  had 
enfeoffed.  The  knights  claimed  that  they  owed  scutage  on  40  fees 
only.  The  abbot  won  his  case  in  the  king's  court  (Chron.  Joe.  de 
Brak.,  p.  63)  ;  that  the  tenant  collected  on  all  the  knights  enfeoffed 
is  implied  in  note  139. 

"8  See  above,  p.  301. 

"9  See  above,  pp.  43,  52,  104. 

i40  See  above,  p.  75. 

«i  See  above,  pp.  43,  188,  note  56. 

1*2  See  above,  p.  75,  note  319. 

381 


STUDIES  IN  TAXATION 

lord's  fine.143  A  method  remained  however  by  which  the 
lord  could  shift  the  fine  to  his  tenant:  by  a  royal  writ 
granting  him  permission  to  collect  an  aid  from  his  men.14* 
The  aid  would  in  theory  not  be  obligatory  on  the  sub- 
tenant. How  generally  such  permission  was  granted  by 
the  king,  it  is  impossible  to  say;  only  a  few  cases  have 
come  down  to  us.  The  fine  therefore  bore  with  especial 
force  on  the  tenants  in  chief  and  probably  for  this  reason 
they  were  opposed  to  it.  John  was  not  content  with 
collecting  scutage  from  all  the  knights  enfeoffed,  when 
an  honor  fell  into  his  hand.  In  addition  he  collected 
heavy  fines  as  though  the  sub-tenants  were  tenants  in 
chief.145  This  was  a  cause  for  complaint.146  Henry  III 
abandoned  his  father's  policy,  except  in  the  case  of  honors 
which  had  been  long  in  hand.147 

From  the  point  of  view  of  the  exchequer,  the  scutage 
did  not  become  a  general  tax  in  the  reign  of  John  or 
his  son.  It  remained  the  composition  for  service.  But 
from  the  point  of  view  of  tenants,  both  tenants  in  chief 
and  rear-vassals,  it  did  not  fall  much  short,  if  at  all,  of 
being  a  tax  on  all  the  fees  held  by  military  service  in  the 
realm.  Scutage  was  of  course  paid  by  all  men  holding 
by  military  service  on  the  lands  of  those  tenants  in  chief 
who  paid  fine  or  scutage  to  the  exchequer.  The  rest  of 
the  tenants  in  chief  performed  service  and  so  made  no 
payment  to  the  king.  Those  of  their  vassals  however  who 
had  not  performed  their  service  in  the  host  had  to  pay 

us  See  above,  pp.  60,  note  236;  80,  note  352;  188,  note  56;  207. 

i**  See  above,  pp.  66,  206,  240,  286. 

i«  See  above,  pp.  36,  48,  55,  65,  71,  78,  95. 

i4«  Is  this  not  legislated  against  in  Magna  Carta,  cap.  16?  "Nullus 
distringatur  ad  faciendum  majus  servitium  de  feudo  militis,  nee  de 
alio  libero  tenemento,  quam  inde  debetur." 

i«  Cf.  the  king's  letter  concerning  the  scutage  of  the  tenants  of 
the  earl  of  Devon  in  1224  (see  above,  p.  152).  Fines  were  paid  by 
tenants  on  such  honors  as  Mortain  (Pipe  Roll,  14  Henry  III,  Dors, 
and  Somers.). 

332 


UNDER  JOHN  AND  HENRY  III 

scutage  to  their  lords.  But  the  reduction  in  the  amount 
of  service  which  each  tenant  in  chief  furnished  the  king 
means  that  a  large  part  of  the  rear-vassals  paid  scutage 
instead  of  serving,  though  the  payment  was  made  to  their 
lords,  not  to  the  king.148  The  service  did  not  stop  with 
the  immediate  vassal  of  the  tenant  in  chief.149  The  sub- 
tenants of  lower  rank  would  be  still  more  likely  to  pay 
scutage  than  to  serve,  for  their  holdings  would  be  smaller. 
The  tendency  may  be  illustrated  by  the  fact  that  tenants 
in  letting  land  arranged  for  the  incidence  of  scutage  which 
was  called  the  service  of  the  fee.15C  The  tenures  of  these 

1*8  See  above,  p.  302. 

149  Tenants  on  honors  in  hand  collected  scutage  from  their  vassals ; 
e.  g.,  above,  p.  66,  note  268.     Here  is  an  example  of  a  long  chain  of 
tenants:  "Haec  est  inquisicio  facta  de  scutagio  in  comitatu  Wigorn' 
per  sacramentum  Simon'  de  Frankeleg  et  (11  others).     In  Holreton' 
dimid'  feod'  quod  Ricardus  de  Karsy  tenet  de  Willelmo  de  Wasse- 
burn,  Willelmus  de  Rogero  de  Clifford,  Rogerum  de  Waltero  Clifford, 
Walterum  de  Willelmo  de  Stutevill,  ipse  de  domino  rege"    (Testa, 
p.   39a).     Bracton,  Note  Book,  cases   657,   660,   1211.     Geoffrey  de 
Mandevill   paid   scutage    on   one    fee   which   he   held   of    Robert   de 
St.  John,  who  held  it  of  the  abbot  of  Hyde  who  held  it  of  the  king 
(Exch.  L.  T.  R.  Mem.  Roll,  27  Henry  III,  m.  7);  Michael  Belet  paid 
scutage  on  three  fees  which  he  held  of  William  de  Say  and  he  of  the 
earl  Warenne  and  he  of  the  king  (ibid.,  m.  7  d). 

150  Stephen   de   Croherst  holds   land   of   Roland   de   Acsted   for   4 
shillings  per  annum  and  2  shillings  "ad  scutagium  quando  scutagium 
eveniret,  scilicet  2  solidos  ad  2  marcas  et  ad  plus  plus  et  ad  minus 
minus"  (Bracton,  N.  B.,  case  477)  ;  one  Gilbert  gave  to  Simon  land 
for  the  yearly  service  of  one  pair  of  gilt  spurs  or  6d  at  Easter  and 
performing  at  a  scutage  of  20  shillings,  when  any  should  happen,  Id, 
and  so  proportionately  more  or  less   (Record  Society  of  Lancashire 
and  Cheshire,  xxxix,  92,  30  Henry  III).     Adam  granted  to  Robert 
land  for  the  forinsec  service  belonging  to  one  carucate,  whereof  9^ 
carucates  make  one  fee,  at  a  scutage  only,  for  all  service   (ibid.,  p. 
104) ;  Richard  le  Boteler  gave  to  Waltheve  de  Waleton  2  bovates  of 
land  by  knight  service  where  10  carucates  of  land  make  the  fee  of 
one  knight  (ibid.,  xlviii,  10).  "tenuit  idem  Walterus  de  Gretona  terram 
illam  per  servicium  militare  .  .  .  reddendo  inde  per  annum  xii  d  et 
faciendo  servicium  forinsecum,  scilicet  ad  scutagium  viginti  solidorum 
iii  den.  et  ad  plus  plus  et  ad  minus  minus"  (Bracton,  N.  B.,  case  33; 
also  cases  288,  361,  477,  795). 

333 


STUDIES  IN  TAXATION 

men  were  called  military,  though  they  did  not  have  to 
perform  military  service.  All  this  suggests  that  at  some 
point  in  the  feudal  ladder,  every  fee  in  the  kingdom  was 
held  by  a  man  whose  tenure  was  military,  yet  who  did  not 
and  was  not  expected  to  perform  military  service,  except 
by  paying  scutage.  From  the  standpoint  of  these  men 
of  different  grades,  the  king's  summons  to  the  host  was 
merely  the  occasion  for  the  levy  of  a  tax.  The  existence 
of  the  scutage  as  a  general  tax  on  the  rear-vassals  helps 
to  explain  the  feeling  in  the  thirteenth  century  that  the 
increase  in  the  rate  and  the  greater  frequency  of  the  levy 
was  a  burden  under  John.  Such  a  feeling  would  not  be 
confined  to  rear-vassals,  but  would  animate  tenants  in 
chief  as  well,  though  the  majority  of  the  latter  usually 
performed  their  service  in  the  field,  for  they  would  find 
it  increasingly  difficult  to  collect  from  their  men.151 
Moreover,  if  discontent  were  aroused,  it  would  all  be 
directed  against  the  king,  for  he  was  the  cause  of  the 
levy.152 

isi  This  feeling  of  the  rear-vassals  and  its  influence  is  a  matter 
of  conjecture.  There  are  cases  when  rear-vassals  resist  the  collection 
of  scutage,  but  one  cannot  safely  generalize  from  them  (see  above, 
p.  321).  The  cases  cited  above  in  which  men  were  enfeoffed  for  a 
payment  of  scutage  will  illustrate  the  feeling  of  the  sub-tenant. 
They  usually  were  to  pay  scutage  as  often  as  it  should  run,  and 
not  at  a  fixed  rate,  but  at  so  much  and  ad  plus  plus  et  ad  minus 
minus.  When  the  scutage  was  only  an  occasional  levy  as  under 
Henry  II  and  was  never  taken  at  more  than  20s,  as  was  the  case  for 
years,  the  amount  of  such  an  additional  rent  would  be  clearly  under- 
stood; when  however  these  men  who  had  enfeoffed  for  such  amounts 
found  that  sometimes  they  had  to  pay  every  year  and  at  a  much 
higher  rate,  it  is  likely  that  they  would  be  discontented. 

152  The  king  decided  on  the  war  and  summoned  the  host.  He 
levied  the  scutage,  he  gave  tenants  permits  to  collect  scutage  from 
their  vassals,  and  his  officer  distrained  those  of  the  latter  who  were 
unwilling  or  were  slow  to  pay;  sometimes  the  king  collected  it 
directly  from  the  sub- tenant  for  the  exchequer.  It  was  to  the  king 
that  the  rear-vassal  could  appeal  if  his  lord  tried  to  collect  scutage 
from  him  unjustly.  Thus  the  whole  levy  centered  in  the  king. 

334 


UNDER  JOHN  AND  HENRY  III 

Part  of  the  scutage  and  fine  was  paid  at  the  exchequer, 
and  part  of  it  was  paid  either  to  the  king  himself,  "in 
camera,"  into  the  wardrobe,  or  to  the  sheriff.153  How  was 
the  money  collected?  When  the  scutage  was  put  in  charge, 
did  the  sheriff  immediately  begin  to  collect  it  from  the 
rear-vassals,  or  did  he  deal  with  the  tenant  in  chief?  Two 
varieties  of  cases  arose:  that  of  the  tenant  in  chief  who 
performed  his  service  and  that  of  the  tenant  who  paid  a 
fine  or  scutage.  Sometimes  the  sheriff  collected  scutage 
from  the  rear-vassals  of  the  tenant  who  had  served,  but 
in  general  such  a  tenant  received  a  writ  from  the  king 
(de  scutagio  habendo)  allowing  him  his  scutage  in  whole 
or  in  part.  Such  a  writ  covered  all  his  fees.154  The 
sheriff  had  his  work  to  do  here.  He  aided  the  tenant 
with  distraint,  if  necessary;  he  reported  the  number  of 
his  fees  at  the  exchequer  and  he  certified  to  the  exchequer 
barons  that  the  tenant  had  received  a  writ  of  quittance.155 
When  the  tenant  in  chief  owed  fine  or  scutage,  there  are 
cases  in  which  the  sheriff  seems  to  have  collected  from 
the  rear-vassals.156  But  the  normal  method  is  probably 
given  in  the  instructions  for  the  levy  of  the  aid  of  1217. 
Those  tenants  who  desired  it  obtained  a  royal  writ  to 
collect  from  their  vassals.  If  they  failed  to  do  this,  the 
sheriff  entered  their  lands  and  collected  the  aid  from  the 
rear- vassals.157  It  is  not  possible  to  prove  that  the  tenant 
in  chief  would  ordinarily  prefer  to  secure  such  a  writ, 
but  probably  that  was  the  case,  for  such  a  writ  would 
keep  the  king's  official  off  his  land.  Tenants  were  con- 
tinually receiving  these  writs.158  Throughout  the  period, 

153  E.  g.,  see  above,  pp.  28,  29,  44,  146. 

154  See  above,  p.  318. 

155  See  above,  pp.  29,  30,  152,  318  ff . 

156  See  above,  p.  321. 

157  See  above,  p.  128. 

iss  See  above,  pp.  140,  147,  152,  230,  319.  See  also  such  writs 
for  the  scutage  of  Kerry  in  Fine  Roll,  13  Henry  III,  m.  12,  13; 

335 


STUDIES  IN  TAXATION 

stewards  of  tenants  in  chief  were  summoned  to  appear 
at  the  exchequer  to  account  for  the  scutage  of  their 
lords.156  The  charge  in  the  Pipe  Roll  was  always  against 
the  tenant  in  chief,  never  against  the  rear-vassal,  except 
sometimes  when  the  barony  was  in  hand.160  Rear-vassals 
of  whom  scutage  was  demanded  by  the  sheriff  for  the 
exchequer  protested  that  they  were  not  tenants  in  chief 
and  the  demand  was  remitted.161  When  a  tenant  in  chief 
refused  to  fine,  he  was  disseized,  or  distrained,  and  for  the 
time  nothing  was  collected  from  his  land.162  When  a 
scutage  was  paid  to  the  overlord,  the  presumption  was 
that  the  fee  was  held  directly  of  him.163  Tenants  in  chief 

for  the  scutage  of  Poitou  of  1231  in  Fine  Roll,  15  Henry  III,  part  I, 
m.  6,  7,  8;  for  the  scutage  of  Elveyn,  ibid.,  16  Henry  III,  m.  7. 

159  "Ricardus  del  Estre  debet  xvi  sol.  et  viii  den.  de  primo  scutagio 
Regis    Ricardi  .  .  .  senescallus   ejus   affidavit    facere   pacem   et   non 
venit;  in  termino  pasch' "  (Exch.  L.  T.  R.  bundle  1,  no.  3,  Mem.  Roll, 
1  John,  m.  17).    See  also  Simon  de  Charterai,  steward  of  William  de 
Braose  (ibid.,  m.  19,  m.  19  d).    "Hugo  de  Morba  senescallus  Henrici 
de  Trasci  aff'  facere  pacem  de  L  marc,  et  Him.  de  scutagio  suo  sicut 
vicecomes  dicit  et  non  venit"  (ibid.,  m.  19  d).    See  also  the  cases  of 
summons   of  stewards   of   Eustace   de   Vescy,   Robert   Fitz   Walter, 
Aubrey  de  Ver,  Joskin  de  Nevill,  Earl  Ferrers    (Exch.   L.   T.   R., 
bundle  1,  no.  4,  Mem.  Roll,  10  John,  m.  4a  dorso,  8a,  lla).    "Hamo 
Pech'  debet  xiiii  li.  viii  sol.  x  den.  de  scutagio  Regis  H.  tercii,  de 
scutagio  Walliae  xx  marc.;  senescallus  ejus  R.  de  Craweden'  aff.  que 
fac'  pacem  de  praedicto  debito"  (Proceedings  of  His  Majesty's  Com- 
missioners on  the  Public  Records,  1832-1833,  ed.  C.  P.  Cooper,  Record 
Com.,  p.  455;  Mem.  Roll,  K.  R.,  3  Henry  III) ;  other  references  to  the 
stewards  on  pp.  385,  392,  459.    "Humfr'  de  Bohun  debet  xxii  li.  et  1 
marc,    de   scutagio   pictaviae;    Robertus    de    Suham   senescallus    afF. 
Fiant  brevia  et  colligatur  illud  scutagium"   (Exch.  L.  T.  R.,  Mem. 
Roll,  9  Henry  III,  m.  9  d).    See  references  to  stewards  of  Hugh  de 
Nevill,  William  Fitz  Hamon,  Robert  Fitz  Walter,  the  heir  of  Robert 
de  Ver,  the  earl  of  Chester  (ibid.,  27  Henry  III,  m.  13  d,  14,  15,  15  d, 
16);  see  also  William  Marshal  (ibid.,  28  Henry  III,  m.  16);  Cristiana 
Ledet  (ibid.,  40  Henry  III,  m.  21). 

160  See  above,  p.  42. 

161  See  above,  p.  319. 

162  See  above,  pp.  31,  67,  74,  99. 

163  See  above,  p.  330.     It  was   to  the  interest  of  the  mesne  lord 
to  defend  those  tenants  who  owed  no  scutage  against  the  distraint 

336 


were  charged  with  scutage  in  more  than  one  county,  yet 
the  amount  due  in  one  county  might  be  paid  in  another.164 
It  is  likely  therefore  that  in  ordinary  cases,  when  the  pay- 
ment of  scutage  was  not  too  long  delayed,  the  sheriff  dealt 
with  the  tenant  in  chief  rather  than  with  the  rear-vassal. 
Besides  the  sums  which  were  paid  to  the  sheriff  and  for 
which  he  accounted  to  the  exchequer,  some  payments  were 
made  by  tenants  in  chief  directly  to  the  exchequer.165 
Possibly  some  of  the  fines  were  paid  to  special  justices 
who  had  levied  them.166  The  question  may  be  raised 
whether  the  king  when  he  came  to  distrain  for  his  scutage 
paid  any  attention  to  the  arrangements  by  which  tenants 
in  chief  and  sub-tenants  had  distributed  the  incidence  of 
scutage  and  service.  According  to  the  law,  every  part  of 
the  tenement  was  responsible  to  the  king  for  the  whole  of 
the  service  due  from  the  tenement.167  Consequently  the 
king  in  order  to  get  his  scutage  could  enter  any  holding 
which  owed  military  service  and  distrain  any  property 
which  he  found  there.168  Yet  some  attention  was  paid  to 
arrangements  of  the  sub-tenants.  If  the  rear-vassal  had 
paid  his  lord  the  scutage,  he  would  not  be  distrained.168 

of  the  overlord;  otherwise,  he  might  lose  those  lands  which  would 
then  hold  directly  of  the  former  overlord  (Bracton,  Note  Book, 
cases  563,  674,  1622). 

164  See  above,  pp.  29,  41,  51,  59,  75,  81. 

iss  See  above,  p.  320. 

IBS  See  above,  pp.  44,  53,  61. 

i«7  Pollock  and  Maitland,  I,  261. 

i«s  Bracton,  Note  Book,  cases  202,  657,  660,  674,  1146,  1211. 

leg  "Milites  tenentes  de  honore  de  Stafford'  venerunt  ad  scacca- 
rium  .  .  .  Omnes  dicunt  quod  soluerunt  scutagia  regis  domine  Mili- 
sente  .  .  .  Mandatum  est  vicecomiti  quod  non  distringat  eos"  (Exch., 
L.  T.  R.,  Mem.  Roll,  5  Henry  III,  m.  1  d).  "Mandatum  est  vicecomiti 
quod  distringat  milites  tenentes  de  abbatia  Sancti  Augustini  Cantuar' 
in  bailiva  sua  ad  reddendum  eidem  abbati  scutagium  de  Biham  nisi 
habeant  quietanciam  per  breve  regis  vel  nisi  fuerint  in  exercitu" 
(ibid.,  6  Henry  III,  m.  2  d).  "Mandatum  est  vicecomiti  quod  pacem 
habere  permittat  Willelmo  de  Gernun  de  demanda  scutagii  de  terris 
que  tenet  de  Ernulfo  de  Maundevill'  quas  idem  Ernulfus  tenet  de 

337 


STUDIES  IN  TAXATION 

If  he  had  neither  paid  nor  performed  his  service,  then 
both  he  and  his  lord  might  be  distrained,  though  the  rear- 
vassal  was  only  responsible  for  the  amount  due  from  his 
holding.170 

About  three-fourths  of  the  fine  and  scutage  entered 
under  John  is  recorded  as  paid  in  the  first  two  years  after 
the  levy.171  In  Henry  Ill's  reign,  the  proportion  is  still 
less.172  After  the  first  two  years,  little  scutage  is  recorded 
as  paid.  The  debts  ran  on  for  years.173  Payments  were 
made  and  the  scutage  pardoned  long  after  the  levy  was 
put  in  charge.  This  means  that  the  machinery  for  com- 
pelling payment  was  inefficient,  a  condition  true  with 
reference  to  other  debts  owed  to  the  crown. 

What  authority  had  the  king  for  the  levy  of  a  scutage? 
The  question  that  arises  is  whether  the  king  took  it  by 
virtue  of  a  right  which  he  possessed  as  feudal  lord,  or 
whether,  as  in  the  case  of  the  aids,  he  could  levy  it  only 
by  the  consent  of  his  tenants.  It  seems  unquestionable 
that  the  king  took  the  scutage  as  his  due.  In  the  first 
place,  by  the  terms  of  the  feudal  contract,  the  tenant  in 

domino  rege  in  capite  quia  idem  Ernulfus  debet  inde  respondere" 
(ibid.,  7  Henry  III,  m.  12).  See  the  case  of  Robert  le  Buteiler 
(ibid.,  27  Henry  III,  m.  2) ;  of  Geoffrey  de  MandevilT  (ibid.,  m.  7) ; 
of  Michael  Belet  (ibid.,  m.  7  d)  ;  of  the  abbot  of  Beaulieu  (ibid., 
m.  8  d)  ;  of  the  tenants  of  the  bishop  of  Durham  (ibid.,  39  Henry 
III,  m.  13).  This  was  the  custom  under  Henry  II  (Dialogus  de 
Scaccario,  ed.  Hughes,  Crump  and  Johnson,  p.  148). 

170  That  both  might  be  distrained,  see  the  Dialogus,  above,  note 
169;  that  the  rear-vassal  only  for  the  amount  due  from  his  holding, 
Bracton,  Note  Book,  cases  624,  657,  1146. 

171  See  above,  pp.  23,  36,  48,  55,  65,  71,  78,  98,  102. 
"2  See  above,  pp.  139,  144,  150,  174,  185,  191,  197,  248. 

173  The  abbot  of  Ramsey  paid  the  first  scutage  of  John  in  1205 ; 
the  abbot  of  Westminster  in  1207;  Eustace  de  Balliol  paid  on  the 
same  scutage  £15  in  1208  and  £10  18s  8d  in  1209;  in  1227,  the  bishop 
of  Salisbury  was  pardoned  sums  due  for  the  first  six  scutages  of 
John  because  of  services  performed  for  Henry  III  (Rot.  Litt.  Claus., 
II,  195a);  in  1251,  scutage  of  Elveyn  (1231)  was  pardoned  a  tenant 
(Excerpta,  II,  102,  157). 

338 


UNDER  JOHN  AND  HENRY  III 

chief  was  bound  to  serve  the  king  in  war.  If  he  failed  to 
perform  this  service,  he  failed  to  keep  his  contract  and 
his  fee  was  technically  forfeit.  The  king  would  have  an 
undoubted  right  to  a  money  composition.  There  was 
therefore  in  the  scutage  no  question  of  the  consent  of 
the  tenant.  In  the  second  place,  to  say  that  the  tenants 
granted  the  scutage  is  to  say  that  scutage  was  an  aid. 
Such  a  statement  involves  a  difficulty  at  once.  Many 
scutages  were  declared  at  the  close  of  a  campaign  in  the 
presence  of  the  host.  Those  present  would  not  as  a  rule 
pay,  for  they  had  performed  their  service.  The  scutage 
thus  would  be  granted  by  the  men  who  did  not  pay  it  at 
all,  or  in  other  words,  the  barons  throughout  Henry  Ill's 
reign  acknowledged  the  validity  of  the  principle  that  the 
consent  to  a  tax  of  those  present  bound  those  who  were 
not  present.  When  however  we  examine  the  history  of 
the  aids,  we  find  that  even  at  the  close  of  Henry  Ill's 
reign,  the  tenants  in  chief  doubted  their  right  to  levy 
aids  on  the  property  of  absentees.174  Hence  we  may 
question  whether  consent  was  involved  in  taking  scutage. 
Furthermore,  for  thirty  years  after  1237,  the  barons 
refused  to  grant  the  king  aids.175  Yet  during  this  time, 
three  scutages  were  levied.176  In  view  of  the  attitude  of 
the  barons  toward  extraordinary  taxation  at  this  time, 
and  considering  the  fact  that  these  scutages  were  the 
composition  for  service,  it  seems  clear  that  the  power  to 
take  them  rested  in  the  king's  right  to  military  service 
rather  than  in  a  grant  by  his  tenants.  Although  this  is 
true,  there  yet  remain  other  questions  which  need  answer- 
ing, particularly  in  the  case  of  a  king  like  John  who 
insisted  on  his  rights  to  the  utmost.  The  king  had  the 

174  See  below,  p.  388. 

ITS  Two  aids  were  levied  in  this  period,  that  of  1245  to  marry  the 
king's  daughter,  and  that  of  1253,  to  knight  his  eldest  son;  they  were 
obligatory. 

i™  1242,  1246,  1257. 


STUDIES  IN  TAXATION 

right  to  levy  the  scutage,  but  could  he  arbitrarily  deter- 
mine the  rate?  Could  he  levy  it  on  some  men  while  others 
were  not  asked  for  either  service  or  scutage?  Could  he 
levy  fines  as  well?  Was  he  the  only  one  to  decide  when 
scutage  was  legally  due?  The  expansion  of  the  king's 
power  along  these  lines  led  to  the  provisions  introduced 
into  Magna  Carta.177 

The  tallage  was  levied  on  the  royal  demesne,  including 
all  demesne  cities  and  boroughs.  It  was  owed  to  the  king, 
though  he  was  not  unrestricted  in  taking  it.  On  an  aver- 
age he  levied  a  tallage  only  once  in  three  years.178  Tallage 
was  not  always  the  correlative  of  the  scutage,  to  the 
extent  that  when  the  scutage  was  taken  from  the  military 
tenants,  a  tallage  was  levied  on  the  demesne.  This  was 
done  in  many  cases,  but  in  many  other  instances,  tallage 
was  levied  when  no  scutage  was  taken  and  scutage  when 
there  was  no  tallage,  so  that  it  is  fair  to  say  that  the  two 
levies  were  independent  of  each  other.  John  levied  both 
scutage  and  tallage  in  six  or  perhaps  eight  cases  ;179  he 
levied  no  tallage  when  he  took  scutage  in  at  least  three 
cases.180  Henry  III  levied  both  scutage  (or  an  aid  on 
knights'  fees)  and  tallage  four  times.181  He  levied  scutage 
and  no  tallege  nine  times,182  and  tallage,  but  no  scutage, 
eleven  times.183  When  the  king  took  an  aid  from  the 
tenants  by  military  service,  he  took  a  tallage  from  the 
demesne.  This  was  the  case  in  1217,  1235,  and  1245.18* 
In  1253,  no  tallage  was  levied,  although  there  was  an  aid 

177  See  below,  p.  361. 

178  John  took  a  tallage  six  or  eight  times  in  17  years ;  Henry  III 
15  times  in  56  years. 

ITS  In  1199,  1202,  1204,  1206,  1210,  1214,  and  perhaps  in  1203  and 
1205:  See  index:  tallages,  list  of. 
iso  1201,  1209,  1211. 
isi  1217,  1229,  1235,  1245. 

182 1221,  1223,  1224,  1228,  1231,  1232,  1242,  1246,  1257. 
iss 1223,  1227,  1234,  1238,  1241,  1249,  1252,  1255,  1260,  1268,  1269. 
is*  See  above,  pp.  128,  213,  249. 

340 


UNDER  JOHN  AND  HENRY  III 

to  knight  the  king's  son.  The  omission  was  doubtless  due 
to  the  fact  that  a  tallage  which  had  not  yet  been  fully 
collected  was  levied  in  1252.  The  king  however  asked 
the  towns  to  make  him  a  gracious  aid  for  the  expedition 
to  Gascony.181  The  demesne  paid  the  new  taxes  on 
property.188  In  1237  and  1270,  however,  the  towns  paid 
a  tallage  instead  of  the  thirtieth  and  twentieth.187 

The  scutage  never  became  fixed  at  a  certain  rate,  yet 
its  variations  were  within  limits.  As  the  tallage  was 
always  levied  in  a  lump  sum,  its  variations  could  not  have 
the  regular  character  of  the  scutage.  Yet  with  the 
exception  of  the  tallages  of  1210,  there  is  a  sort  of  limit 
beyond  which  the  king  did  not  go  in  the  amount  which 
he  took  from  the  towns.188  Just  as  the  rate  of  scutage 


iss  See  above,  p.  256. 

186  in  1207,  1225,  and  1232;  probably  part  of  the  demesne 
them  in  1237  and  1270,  that  is,  the  part  outside  the  towns. 
IST  See  above,  pp.  219,  297. 


paid 


188 

1199 

1205 

1206 

1210 

1214 

m 

m 

m 

m 

m 

Worcester 

40 

40 

70 

500 

150 

Gloucester 

120 

80 

60 

500 

Bristol 

350 

£468-12-8 

150 

1000 

750 

Winchester 

400 

62 

700 

200 

Norwich 

150 

105 

50 

Cambridge 

£20-3-0 

£60-9-8 

150 

150 

Huntingdon 

£10-14-4 

£21-2-2 

100 

30 

Northampton 

£60-18-0 

1791 

600 

400 

Lincoln 

250 

3832 

750 

Hereford 

100 

50 

30 

300 

200 

Newcastle 

100 

139 

300 

Derby 

£15-4-0 

60 

Nottingham 

£12-4-0 

20 

100 

Oxford 

100 

£87-14-4 

500 

300 

York    . 

300 

4103 

150 

500 

Salop 

60 

50 

60 

200 

Southampton 

120 

120 

35 

40 

40 

Canterbury 

100 

60 

300 

London 

1500* 

2000 

2000 

1  179m  12s  8d  in  Pipe  Roll  of  5  John. 

2  383m  8s  8d  in  Pipe  Roll  of  4  John. 

a  In  Pipe  Roll  of  6  John ;  in  5  John  there  is  a  tallage  of  500  marks 
on  York. 

*  In  Pipe  Roll  of  6  John. 

341 


STUDIES  IN  TAXATION 

increased  toward  the  close  of  Henry  Ill's  reign,  so  the 
tallages  seem  to  have  become  heavier. 

In  Henry  IPs  reign,  the  tallage  was  levied  by  the 
itinerant  justices.189  The  same  method  continued  in  the 
thirteenth  century.  The  itinerant  justices,  justices  of 
assize,  or  some  other  royal  official  specially  assigned  to 
this  work,  made  the  levy,  often,  perhaps  always,  aided 
by  the  sheriff.190  The  method  of  assessment  which  is 


*88  (Continued) 

1223 

1227 

1230 

1234 

1235 

1241 

1245 

1252 

1255 

m 

m 

m 

m 

m 

m 

m 

m 

m 

Worcester 

50 

40 

50 

50 

50 

80 

100 

135 

Gloucester 

60 

100 

60 

100 

80 

80 

100 

140 

Bristol  . 

300 

250 

300 

150 

400 

430 

Winchester 

100 

60 

200 

200 

220 

Norwich 

150 

150 

150 

75 

50 

120 

£168i 

£1779 

Cambridge 

25 

100 

60 

60 

45 

£592 

95 

Huntingdon  . 

15 

30 

20 

30 

25 

£203 

36 

Northampton 

100 

300 

180 

100 

150 

200 

200 

£158* 

Lincoln  . 

300 

400 

150 

120 

160 

200 

£1545 

300 

Hereford 

120 

60 

100 

132 

Newcastle 

180 

150 

150 

100 

100 

100 

100 

Derby  . 

50 

30 

30 

30 

20 

55 

£356 

60 

Nottingham  . 

100 

60 

60 

50 

40 

60 

£41T 

75 

Oxford 

200 

300 

150 

150 

200 

270 

300 

York   . 

300 

500 

300 

300 

500 

500 

Salop 

100 

300 

70 

100 

40 

60 

120 

160 

Southampton 

60 

60 

100 

300 

200 

210 

Canterbury 

. 

100 

75 

100 

100 

120 

London  . 

1600 

4120 

1000 

1000 

1500 

2000 

10008 

3000 

1  £168  18s  4d. 

2  £59  5s. 

s  £20  11s  Id. 

*  £158  15s  8d. 

s  £154  4s  8d. 

«  £35  3s  4d. 

7  £41  6s  8d. 

s  1,000m  of  silver  and  20m  gold  (Pipe  Roll,  37  Henry  III,  m.  4  d). 

»  £177  10s. 

189  See  above,  p.  2. 

i°°  See  above,  pp.  31,  45,  47,  61,  and  index:  tallage. 

342 


UNDER  JOHN  AND  HENRY  III 

described  in  the  Dialogus  was  followed.  A  town  either 
paid  a  lump  sum  or  was  tallaged  by  the  justices  per 
capita.  If  the  sum  offered  by  the  town  was  not  sufficient, 
the  citizens  had  to  increase  it  till  the  royal  officers  were 
satisfied,  or  be  tallaged  per  capita.191  Men  outside  the 
towns  might  pay  per  capita;192  a  vill  or  hundred  might 
fine  in  a  lump  sum.192  Property  however  was  not  to  be 
assessed.194 

Religious  houses  which  held  land  by  military  tenure 
paid  fine  or  scutage.  Sometimes  the  fine  was  called  a 
donum. 19E  When  a  scutage  was  taken,  or  an  aid  on 
knights'  fees,  the  king  might  ask  religious  houses  which 
did  not  hold  by  knights'  service  to  grant  him  an  auxilium 
or  a  donum.  John  did  this  four  times  in  connection  with 
scutages.19e  Henry  III  took  a  donum  from  religious 
houses  in  connection  with  the  aids  of  1235  and  1245,197 
and  when  he  went  to  Gascony.198  He  took  one  donum  from 
them  when  no  scutage  or  aid  was  levied.195  The  amounts 
raised  in  this  way  were  often  considerable.200 

The  scutages,  fines,  and  tallages  were  sometimes  suffi- 
cient to  defray  the  cost  of  a  campaign.  In  1210,  these 
levies  yielded  not  far  from  25,000  marks,201  a  sum  which 
would  probably  pay  the  expenses  of  the  expedition  to 
Ireland.  Usually  however  they  fell  short  of  supplying 
the  necessary  money.  As  the  king  did  not  always  levy 

i9i  See  above,  pp.  32,  68,  76,  82,  148,  172,  207. 
i»2  See  above,  pp.  45,  61,  82,  100,  128,  148. 

193  See  above,  pp.  32,  61,  76,  82,  128. 

194  This  is  indicated  by  the  lump  suras  which  individuals  and  towns 
paid. 

195  See  above,  pp.  32,  61. 

196  See  above,  pp.  32,  61,  68,  70,  77. 

197  See  above,  pp.  212,  244. 

198  See  above,  pp.  190,  237,  255. 

199  See  above,  p.  249. 

200  See  above,  notes  196-199. 

201  See  above,  p.  98  ff. 

343 


STUDIES  IN  TAXATION 

a  tallage,  he  often  had  only  the  scutage  to  increase  his 
income.  In  1214,  John  took  with  him  at  least  40,000 
marks,  not  counting  money  which  he  sent  to  Flanders; 
the  scutage  and  tallage  (amount  charged  not  paid) 
amounted  to  about  18,000  marks.202  The  campaign  of 
Bedford  cost  about  2,000  marks,  while  the  scutage  on 
laymen  amounted  to  about  1,350  marks,  of  which  300 
marks  were  paid  in  1224  and  1225.203  The  expedition 
of  1225  cost  at  least  £36,000;  that  of  1242,  about  60,000 
marks;  that  of  1253,  at  least  45,000  marks.204 

It  is  not  possible  to  state  exactly  the  total  income  of 
either  John  or  his  son,  but  it  is  quite  evident  that  the 
former  was  well  supplied  with  money  during  the  greater 
part  of  his  reign.  In  1200,  he  was  able  to  pay  20,000 
marks  to  Philip.205  In  1204,  he  is  said  to  have  sent  much 
money  to  Poitou.206  In  1206,  he  had  a  large  sum  on 
hand  in  the  autumn  at  the  close  of  his  long  campaign  in 
France.207  The  thirteenth  of  1207  brought  in  at  least 
£60,000.208  In  1208,  the  king  had  40,000  marks  at 
Winchester.209  In  1212,  he  was  keeping  at  the  single 
castle  of  Nottingham  over  50,000  marks.210  In  the  last 
half  of  the  year  1213  and  the  early  part  of  1214,  there 
are  notices,  which  do  not  seem  to  be  duplicates,  of  over 

202  See  above,  pp.  110-118. 

203  See  above,  pp.  150,  159. 

204  See  above,  pp.  168,  238,  260. 

205  See  above,  pp.  32,  34.    For  1203,  see  Powicke,  p.  348. 
20628,000  marks   (Cogg.,  p.   147);  Davis,  Normans  and  Angevint, 

Oman  Series,  p.  345,  says,  "This  is  preposterous." 

207  See  above,  p.  82. 

208  See  above,  p.  91. 

209  "et  in  liberationibus  thesaurarii   et  camerariorum   qui   moram 
fecerunt  apud  Winton'  ad  numerandum  xl  millia  marcarum  ibidem" 
(Pipe  Roll,  10  John,  Hants,  m.  6  d). 

210  Thus  on  July  26  he  sent  there  from  Bristol  over  48,000  marks 
and   he   acknowledged   the   receipt   at    Nottingham   of   3,900m    from 
London  on  August  19  (Rot.  Litt.  Glaus.,  I,  122a,  123b) ;  there  is  a 
sum  of  18,000m  received  at  Merleberg  (ibid.,  116b). 

344 


UNDER  JOHN  AND  HENRY  III 

80,000  marks  of  money  on  hand.211  Unlike  his  father, 
Henry  III  was  always  short  of  money  when  he  had  no 
grant  from  the  great  council.212  This  lack  was  due  in 
part  to  his  extravagance  and  bad  management213  and  in 
part  to  the  expense  of  certain  outside  interests :  Gascony, 
Sicily,  and  his  sister's  marriage.  But  these  explanations 
are  not  sufficient;  his  predecessors  also  had  a  share  in 
foreign  affairs,  yet  they  levied  few  aids.  Two  other 
causes  helped  to  bring  about  the  financial  troubles  of 
Henry  III :  a  rise  in  prices21*  and  the  reduction  by  Magna 
Carta  of  the  ordinary  income  of  the  king.215 

The  origin  of  modern  taxation  is  not  to  be  found  in  the 
development  of  scutage  from  its  original  character  as  a 

2n  In  July,  10,000m  and  in  August  2,000m  were  to  be  sent  from 
the  Templars  in  London  to  Flanders  (Rot.  Litt.  Claris.,  I,  145b; 
Rot.  Litt.  Pat.,  p.  103b);  the  king  had  left  20,000m  at  the  Temple 
to  be  drawn  on  for  this  purpose  (Rot.  Litt.  Glaus.,  I,  136b;  Rot. 
Litt.  Pat.,  p.  lOOb) ;  in  August,  5,410m  were  sent  to  Poitou  (Rot. 
Litt.  Pat.,  p.  102b) ;  in  December,  1213,  and  January,  1214,  27,000m 
were  paid  to  the  clergy  (see  above,  p.  109) ;  and  the  king  took 
40,000m  with  him  to  France  in  February,  1214  (see  above,  p.  110) ; 
this  gives  a  total  of  over  84,000  marks.  There  is  an  entry  in  the 
Close  Roll  which  mentions  three  items  footing  up  to  120,000  marks, 
but  the  sums  may  not  be  mutually  exclusive:  "et  pro  cariagio  quin- 
quaginta  millia  marcarum  a  Bristoll'  usque  Divis'  per  Thomam  de 
Saunford'  C  sol.  .  .  .  et  Hugoni  de  NevilP  xv  li.  ad  liberaciones 
faciendas  quinquaginta  et  duarum  quadrigarum  qui  portaverunt  xx 
millia  marcarum  ...  a  Bristoll'  usque  Cant'  .  .  .  Item  pro  cariagio 
xv  carectarum  qui  portaverunt  thesaurum  nostrum  scilicet  L  milia 
marcarum  a  Bristoll'  usque  Corf"  (Rot.  Litt.  Claw.,  I,  152b). 

212  See  index:  Henry  III. 

213  The  most  striking  case  of  his  lack  of  foresight  is  in  the  Sicilian 
affair.     He  had  for  several  years  been  short  of  money  although  at 
the  time  he  had  had  no  great  extraordinary  expense;   he  had  just 
concluded   an   expensive   campaign   in   Gascony   partly   on   borrowed 
money.     Yet  he  agreed  to  pay  the  pope  135,000  marks  for  expenses 
which  the  papacy  had  already  incurred  in  Sicily  with  no  certainty 
that  he  would  be  able  to  use  any  of  the  tenth  of  1254  to  pay  this 
debt  (see  above,  p.  274). 

214  Ramsay,  Dawn  of  the  Constitution,  p.  301. 

215  See  above,  p.  119. 

345 


STUDIES  IN  TAXATION 

commutation  of  military  service  into  a  general  tax  on  all 
fees  levied  by  the  exchequer  whenever  the  king  waged  war. 
The  scutage  retained  its  original  character  throughout 
Henry  Ill's  reign  and  continued  to  be  levied  without 
difficulty  while  the  king  and  his  barons  were  struggling 
over  the  question  of  taxation.218  The  source  of  modern 
taxation  was  the  feudal  aid,  the  voluntary  contribution 
which  the  vassal  made  to  relieve  the  wants  of  his  lord. 
There  were  certain  aids  which  were  not  voluntary,  but 
which  were  fixed  by  the  feudal  law.  In  France,  there 
were  the  three  regular  aids,  to  which  was  added  later 
the  aid  for  the  crusade.217  In  Normandy,  the  vassal  owed 
aids  for  the  lord's  relief,  the  marriage  of  his  daughter, 
and  the  knighting  of  his  eldest  son.218  In  the  Latin  king- 
dom of  Jerusalem,  the  king  could  levy  an  aid  to  provide 
for  his  ransom  and  to  pay  a  debt  incurred  for  the  general 
welfare.219  The  aids  in  England  were  fixed  by  Magna 
Carta  at  three,220  but  the  previous  practice  recognized  an 
aid  to  pay  relief.221  It  is  however  not  with  the  aids  which 
had  become  fixed  that  we  are  chiefly  concerned,  but  with 
those  which  still  remained  voluntary,  the  gracious  aids. 
Examples  of  these  aids  appear  under  Henry  II,  granted 
by  the  tenants  to  their  lords  for  expenses  on  trips  abroad 
on  the  king's  service,  for  war,  to  pay  the  lord's  debts, 
and  simply  as  auanlium,  made  gratis,  bona  voluntate.22' 

216  In  1242,  1246,  and  1258. 

217  Esmein,  Cours  eUmentaire  du  droit  fran^ais,  ed.  1901,  p.  190. 

218  Tres  ancien  coutumier,  cap.  47,  48;  also,  to  ransom  the  lord, 
Ancien  coutumier,  cap.  33. 

219  Dodu,    Institutions    monarchiques    dans    le    royaume    latin    de 
Jerusalem,  p.  249. 

220  Cap.  12. 

22iGlanvill,  cap.  4,  8;  Stubbs,  Select  Charters,  p.  163. 

222  Red  Book,  II,  cclxvii-lxxx,  Appendix  A.  The  date  of  the  returns 
is  1170  (Round,  Commune  of  London,  p.  125).  "Quando  comes  perexit 
ad  servandas  les  Marches  de  Wales  pluribus  vicibus,  scilicet,  homines 
de  domenio  suo  dederunt  100  solidos;  et  Ricardus  films  Atrac  et  sui 
pares  de  uno  socagio  dederunt  3  marcas  gratis.  .  .  .  Sed  postea 

346 


UNDER  JOHN  AND  HENRY  III 

They  continued  in  John's  reign.  Isabella  de  Bolebec  paid 
300  marks  and  three  palfreys  for  certain  privileges  and 
to  have  a  reasonable  aid  from  her  tenants  to  pay  this 
fine.225  Warren  Fitz  Gerold  had  a  reasonable  aid  to  pay 
his  debts.224  The  abbot  of  Westminster  had  a  reasonable 
aid  from  his  free  tenants  secundum  quantitatem  tenemen- 
torum  suorum  to  pay  the  aid  promised  by  him  to  the 
king;220  likewise  the  prior  of  Acra.226  Such  permits 
except  in  the  three  regular  cases  were  forbidden  by  Magna 
Carta  of  1215  (cap.  15),  but  the  article  was  dropped  in 
reissues  of  the  charter.  Henry  III  issued  numerous  writs 
requesting  the  tenants  of  his  vassals  to  make  their  lords 
an  aid.  Though  in  theory  these  aids  were  of  grace,  the 
frequency  with  which  the  king  made  such  requests  for 
the  benefit  of  his  vassals  suggests  that  his  request  had 
the  force  of  a  command.  The  causes  assigned  were  to 
pay  the  lord's  debts  to  the  king  and  others,  to  sustain  a 
tenant  in  the  king's  service,  to  discharge  reliefs,  to  take 
up  knighthood,  to  marry  the  lord's  eldest  daughter,  to 
go  on  a  crusade,  etc.227  The  general  levies  made  by  John 
and  Henry  III  were  the  application  of  this  custom  to 

homines  de  domenio  comitis  dederunt  11  marcas  ad  quietanda  debita 
comitis;  et  Ricardus  filius  Atraci  et  sui  pares  dederunt  4  marcas 
et  hoc  bona  voluntate  (no.  1).  Homines  inde  (de  Dentuna)  dicunt 
quod  post  transitum  domini  regis  in  Normanniam,  dederunt  eidem 
Roberto  filio  Hugonis  domino  suo  10  solidos  ad  exercitum  domini 
regis  Walliae;  et  dederunt  illi  in  auxilio,  ad  quietanda  debita  adversus 
Judaeos,  16  sol.  et  8  den.,  gratis  (no.  45)." 

223  Madox,  I,  616,  n.  6. 

224  Rot.  Litt.  Pat.,  p.  85a. 

225  R0t.  Litt.  Claus.,  I,  59b. 

226  Ibid.,  p.  32b.     For  similar  aids,  see  Madox,  I,  411,  n.  t;  for  the 
earl  of  Salisbury,  for  the  earl  of  Winchester,  for  the  earl  of  Surrey 
to  sustain  himself  in  the  king's  service,  for  earl  Ferrers   (Rot.  Litt. 
Glaus.,  I,  127a,  144a,  b,  211a)  ;  for  the  constable  of  Chester,  for  the 
prior  of  S.  Swithin  (Rot.  Litt.  Pat.,  pp.  41b,  52a). 

227  For  the  bishop  of  Worcester  "pro  expensis  quas  fecit  in  servicio 
domini  J.   regis";  to  the  knights  and   free  tenants  of  the   abbot  of 
St.  Edmunds,  to  make  him  a  reasonable  aid  "pro  amore  et  petitione 

347 


STUDIES  IN  TAXATION 

the  kingdom  as  a  whole  with  the  king  as  chief  lord.228 
Such  levies  had  the  same  name  and  the  reasons  assigned 
for  them  were  similar.229  A  somewhat  similar  develop- 
ment was  attempted  by  the  French  kings  about  a  century 
later.  Philip  IV  tried  to  establish  a  uniform  tax  by 
exacting  the  feudal  aid  in  more  than  the  four  regular 
cases.  He  was  only  partly  successful  in  doing  so;  the 
aids  needed  the  consent  of  the  taxpayers  and  varied  in 
amount  from  one  district  to  another.230  Thus  the 
starting  point  of  the  change  in  both  countries  was  the 
same,  viz.,  the  feudal  aid. 

The  aid  was  levied  in  three  forms:  a  general  aid  on 
knights'  fees,  called  also  scutage;  a  carucage;  and  taxa- 
tion of  a  certain  percentage  of  personal  property,  the 
tax  on  moveables. 

None  of  the  scutages  levied  by  John  were  aids ;  all 
were  compositions  for  service.  Under  Henry  III  four 
aids  on  all  knights'  fees  were  taken  ;231  two  aids  were  taken 
on  the  fees  of  bishops  (in  1229  and  1242)  and  one  aid 
on  the  fees  of  all  the  clergy  (1231).  The  first  aid  was 

nostra"  to  pay  his  debts  to  the  king,  "tantumque  inde  pro  nostra 
petitione  faciatis  quod  preces  nostras  sibi  sentiat  fructuosas  et  nos 
vobis  inde  ad  grates  teneamur";  for  the  new  abbot  of  Fiscamp,  a 
reasonable  aid  "ita  quod  dominus  rex  eos  inde  commendare  debeat"; 
for  the  constable  of  Chester  "pro  expensis  suis  factis  in  servicio 
crucis";  for  the  prior  of  Stokes,  to  pay  his  debts  to  the  king;  for 
the  bishop  of  London,  to  pay  his  debts ;  John  Marescallus  has  litteras 
deprecatorias  to  pay  his  debts  (Pat.  Rolls,  I,  143,  223,  270,  284,  329, 
363,  372).  There  are  many  examples  of  these  in  the  Patent  Rolls  of 
Henry  III. 

228  They  were  not  of  course  compulsory. 

229  Thus  the  carucage  of  1200,  the  thirteenth  of  1207,  the  fifteenth 
of  1225,  etc.,  were  called  auxilia.     The  cause  assigned  was  to  pay  the 
king's  debts,  to  carry  on  war,  etc. 

230  Vuitry,  Regime  financier  de  la  France,  II,  144,  169-170.    Vuitry 
classes  under  the  aids  the  "retribution  egalement  proportionnelle  aux 
fortunes  et  lib^rant  du  service  de  l'arm£e."    This  was  in  England  the 
fine  and  scutage,  which  had  an  independent  development. 

231 1217,  1235,  1245,  1253. 

348 


UNDER  JOHN  AND  HENRY  III 

levied  by  reason  of  the  grant  of  the  great  council.232  The 
king  had  no  legal  right  to  it  without  this  grant.  The 
second  general  aid  (1235)  was  also  made  by  grant  of 
the  great  council,  though  perhaps  it  was  thought  that 
the  king  was  legally  entitled  to  it.23J  To  the  third  and 
fourth  aids  (1245,  1253)  the  king  was  entitled  by  law 
without  the  consent  of  his  vassals  for  they  were  of  the 
three  regular  aids  which  every  lord  could  levy.234  Both 
were  indeed  levied  at  a  meeting  of  the  great  council. 
Consent  to  the  aid  was  however  not  involved.  In  both 
cases,  the  king  tried  to  get  a  gracious  aid  from  the 
tenants,  was  unsuccessful,  and  then  turned  to  the  feudal 
aid  which  had  to  be  paid.235  It  is  probable  that  he  could 
not  fix  the  rate:  in  1245,  the  fact  that  only  twenty  shill- 
ings per  fee  were  taken  was  doubtless  due  to  the  unwilling- 
ness of  the  barons  to  pay  more.  The  other  three  cases 
of  aids  are  interesting  because  they  look  like  a  denial 
of  the  king's  right  to  service  in  France  from  the  fees  of 
bishops.236  They  are  perhaps  to  be  connected  with  the 
claim  set  up  in  1198.  Bishops  however  had  furnished 
knights  to  serve  in  France  in  John's  reign.237  A  state- 
ment in  Henry  Ill's  letters  patent  which  were  issued  to 
the  clergy  in  connection  with  these  aids  was  perhaps 
intended  to  guard  against  the  establishment  of  a  precedent 
that  the  clergy  did  not  owe  service  in  France.238 

Like  the  scutage,  the  aids  fell  back  on  the  rear-vassals. 

232  See  above,  p.  125. 

233  See  above,  p.  208. 

234  TO  marry  the  king's  daughter  and  to  knight  his  eldest  son. 

235  See  above,  pp.  241,  254. 

236  See  above,  pp.  189,  193,  236. 

237  They  receive  writs  of  quittance  in  John's  reign.    "Milites  archi- 
episcopi   Cantuar'   qui    fuerunt   in   servicio   regis   ultra   mare"    (Rot. 
Cane.,  p.  220)  ;  Powicke,  pp.  239,  note  4,  319. 

238  See  above,  note  236.     The  scutage  of  1242  on  all  tenants  in 
chief  except  the  bishops  was  not  an  aid,  but  a  scutage  in  the  strict 
sense,  viz.,  the  commutation  for  service  (see  above,  p.  229). 

349 


STUDIES  IN  TAXATION 

As  to  the  collection,  ordinarily  the  tenant  in  chief  received 
a  letter  from  the  king,  which  authorized  him  to  collect  an 
aid  from  his  tenants  and  respond  at  the  exchequer.  If 
he  did  not  receive  such  a  letter,  the  sheriff  collected  the 
aid  from  the  rear-vassals.239  In  1235,  a  new  method, 
copied  probably  from  the  taxes  on  moveables,  was  em- 
ployed. Two  knights  were  appointed  in  each  county  to 
receive  the  aid  from  the  tenants  in  chief  in  that  county, 
but  the  innovation  was  not  permanent.240  The  sheriff 
aided  the  tenants  with  distraint.  Each  tenant  in  chief 
responded  for  the  same  number  of  fees  as  in  the  scutage 
proper.  The  king  attempted  to  increase  the  number241 
but  his  efforts  were  not  successful.242  As  with  the  scutage, 
there  were  many  delays  in  payment.  The  aid  on  military 
tenants  was  usually  supplemented  by  a  tallage  on  the 
demesne  and  by  dona  from  religious  houses.242 

The  aid  on  knights'   fees,  the  tallage,   and  the  dona 
covered  after  a  fashion  most  of  the  property  in  the  king- 

239  See  above,  p.  128. 

24°  it  was  not  done  in  the  cases  of  the  later  aids. 

2*1  The  aid  of  1235  is  not  given  in  the  Pipe  Roll  and  we  cannot  say 
on  how  many  fees  it  was  paid  in  general.  Inquests  were  made  in 
1235  and  1242. 

242  The  number  of   fees  is  not  increased  in  the  case   of  tenants 
holding  five  or  more  fees  each  in  the  accounts  of  the  aids  of  1245 
and  1253.    Mr.  Inman  has  compared  the  tenants  holding  ten  or  more 
fees  in  the  roll  of  1253  with  the  holdings  of  1166  and  says  that  new 
enfeoffments  have  been  entirely  omitted   (feudal  Statistics,  p.  51). 
In  the  roll  of  1253  there  are  some  sergeants  holding  by  small  frac- 
tional parts  of  fees  who  are  charged  with  aid;   these  may  be  the 
results  of  the  inquests  (Pipe  Roll,  38  Henry  III,  passim}. 

243  No  dona  from  religious  houses  were  taken  in  1217  in  connection 
with  the  aid,  probably  because  the  clergy  had  just  made  a  contri- 
bution to  the  king   (see  above,  p.  123).     Dona  were  taken  in  1229, 
1235,   1242,  and   1245.     Those  taken  in   1253   are  said  to  have  been 
taken  for  the  expedition  to  Gascony,  not  for  the  knighting  of  the 
king's   son.      No   tallage  was   taken   in    1253,   probably   because   one 
had  been  levied  in  1252  which  had  not  yet  been  entirely  paid.     The 
king  however  asked  the  towns  for  an  aid  for  the  campaign  in  Gascony 
(see  above,  pp.  341,  343). 

350 


UNDER  JOHN  AND  HENRY  III 

dom.  The  scutage  was  levied  at  a  uniform  rate.  It  also 
fell  back  on  men  who  were  not  the  king's  vassals  and  hence 
owed  him  nothing.  These  levies  helped  to  form  the  idea 
of  a  general  tax,  taken  for  the  needs  of  the  government 
and  paid  by  all  who  were  in  its  care.  Yet  directly  out 
of  these  taxes  was  to  grow  no  system  of  national  taxation, 
or  perhaps  it  would  be  better  to  say  that  no  further 
development  was  to  be  made  along  this  line.  This  was 
the  old  method  of  raising  extraordinary  revenues.  It 
was  inelastic.  At  a  time  when  the  expenses  of  the  govern- 
ment were  increasing,  it  could  not  respond.  The  rate  of 
scutage  had  become  fixed  at  not  more  than  three  marks 
per  fee;  the  number  of  fees  which  should  pay  had  also 
become  fixed.  The  contributions  of  the  towns  might  be 
somewhat  enlarged,  though  custom  restrained  too  great 
an  increase.  The  dona  from  religious  houses  could  not 
be  too  large.  The  levies  were  not  based  on  property  so 
that  there  would  be  no  increase  in  the  amount  of  the  tax 
corresponding  to  a  rise  in  the  value  of  the  property.  The 
method  of  collection  was  old  and  evidently  ineffective,  so 
that  in  the  scutage  at  least  the  government  could  hardly 
realize  more  than  half  of  the  nominal  tax  charged.244 

The  other  forms  which  the  aid  assumed,  the  carucage 
and  the  tax  on  moveables,  brought  about  a  revolution  in 
taxation.  With  them  modern  taxes  began.  In  the  first 
place,  the  basis  of  these  levies  was  property  not  tenure; 
men  paid  directly  to  the  king,  no  matter  of  whom  they 
held  or  by  what  tenure.245  In  the  second  place,  though 
the  members  of  the  council  which  granted  these  aids  may 
have  thought  that  each  acted  for  himself,  individually, 
yet  the  result  of  the  deliberations  was  to  create  a  uniform 

244  See  above,  p.  338. 

2*5  There  were  many  exceptions  to  this,  but  it  was  the  normal 
method;  in  the  case  of  the  aids  on  knights'  fees,  the  rear-vassals 
normally  paid  to  their  lords. 

351 


STUDIES  IN  TAXATION 

tax,  proportional  to  the  amount  of  property.246  Finally, 
the  machinery  of  assessment  and  collection  was  new  (in 
taxation)  and  was  national,  not  feudal.  This  machinery 
was  in  general  in  two  parts :  commissioners  to  each  county 
representing  the  king,  whose  main  duty  was  to  supervise 
the  assessment  and  receive  the  money;  a  committee  from 
the  locality,  on  whom  fell  the  burden  of  assessment  and 
collection.247  The  sheriff  cooperated  as  a  subordinate. 
He  summoned  the  men  of  the  locality  to  appear  before 
the  justices  for  the  assessment ;  he  distrained  men  to  pay 
the  tax;  he  furnished  the  transportation  for  the  money; 
he  distrained  the  collectors  to  pay  the  money  at  the 
exchequer.248  The  use  of  local  bodies  in  taxation  is 
regarded  as  one  of  the  roots  of  the  representative 
system.24*  This  does  not  mean  that  under  John  and 
Henry  III,  they  acted  as  a  check  on  the  king's  power, 
protecting  the  taxpayer  from  unjust  assessment.  It  is 
likely  that  the  employment  of  the  jury  was  a  royal  device 
in  taxation  as  well  as  in  other  cases  in  which  it  was  intro- 
duced.250 The  rights  of  the  barons  were  protected  in 
other  ways.251  There  is  evidence  that  both  the  clergy  and 

2*6  That  is,  uniform  within  the  class  on  which  it  was  levied,  not 
necessarily  throughout  all  England:  e.g.  the  carucage  of  1224  on 
the  clergy  only;  the  sixteenth  of  1226  only  on  the  beneficed  clergy; 
the  tenths  of  1253  and  after,  on  the  clergy  only. 

247  In  1207,  each  man  made  oath  personally  before  the  king's 
commissioners.  In  the  other  cases  where  we  have  a  complete  descrip- 
tion of  the  machinery,  the  locality  is  represented. 

2*8  See  above,  pp.  90,  122,  135,  166,  204,  216. 

249  Adams,  Political  History  of  England,  1066-1216,  p.  386 ;  Stubbs, 
Const.  Hist.,  I  (4th  ed.),  652. 

250  it  seems  to  have  been  the  natural  way  to  get  at  the  value  of 
property.     Notice  that  in  the  levy  of  the  fifteenth  on  merchants  and 
the  aid  on  the  Channel  Islands,  the  jury  was  used   (see  above,  pp. 
45,  69). 

251  In  1225,  the  bailiffs  of  the  earls  and  barons  made  oath  to  the 
value   of  their   lords'   property;   in    1232,   the   collection   was   in   the 
hands  of  the  barons;  in  1237,  the  bailiffs  of  the  barons  were  to  be 
present  when  the  assessment  was  made. 

352 


UNDER  JOHN  AND  HENRY  III 

the  laity  disliked  the  inquests  into  their  property  and  did 
not  therefore  regard  the  jury  as  a  means  of  protecting 
their  rights.252 

Most  of  the  property  in  the  kingdom  paid  the  new 
taxes  according  to  an  assessment  made  as  just  described, 
but  there  were  many  exceptional  cases.  One  can  hardly 
say  that  there  was  a  gradual  change  from  payment  of 
aid  in  lump  sums  to  payment  on  an  assessed  valuation  of 
property.  It  would  be  better  to  say  that  in  the  presence 
of  so  great  a  change  the  king  was  unable  to  enforce  the 
new  method  against  everyone.  Thus  in  1198,  we  know 
that  most  of  the  counties  fined  for  their  carucage; 
perhaps  all  did.253  In  1207,  most  of  the  clergy  seem  to 
have  fined  or  paid  dona  for  their  thirteenth.254  In  the 
aids  of  Henry  III,  there  are  many  special  provisions 
made  for  the  assessment  and  collection  on  the  lands  of 
the  clergy.25"  Religious  orders  often  were  allowed  to  fine 
and  so  their  property  was  not  assessed.256 

The  carucage  was  taken  from  more  men  on  the  holding 
of  any  tenant  in  chief  than  was  the  scutage,  for  it  was 
paid  by  men  who  did  not  hold  by  military  tenure.  One 
cannot  say  whether  more  men  were  liable  for  it  on  the 
royal  demesne  than  for  the  tallage.  The  tax  on  move- 
ables  fell  on  more  men  than  the  scutage  on  land  held  by 
military  tenure  and  probably  on  more  than  did  the  caru- 
cage.257 Doubtless,  it  was  paid  by  more  men  on  the 

252  In  1198,  the  inquests  ordered  were  not  taken  in  the  majority  of 
cases   (see  above,  p.  8) ;  in  1207,  the  clergy  often  paid  lump  sums 
for   their   thirteenth    (see   above,   p.   88) ;   in    1225,   the   clergy   were 
to  assess  their  demesnes  themselves;  in   1237,  all  their  property;  in 
1242,  the  inquests  were  opposed;  in  1253,  there  was  opposition  to  the 
method  of  levying  the  tenth  (see  above,  pp.  166,  217,  234,  273). 

253  See  above,  p.  8. 

254  See  above,  p.  88. 

255  See  above,  pp.  136,  166,  204,  210,  215. 

256  See  above,  pp.  135,  163,  202,  216. 

257  The    main    difference    between    the    carucage    and    the    tax    on 
moveables  was  not  in  the  amount  of  property  which  was  assessed; 

353 


STUDIES  IN  TAXATION 

demesne  than  was  the  tallage.258  In  some  cases,  the 
carucage  yielded  more  than  the  scutage  though  this  may 
not  have  been  true  in  every  county.259  The  tax  on  move- 
ables  however  yielded  unquestionably  far  more  than  any 
scutage  or  carucage  which  was  taken  at  the  customary 
rate.260 

A  characteristic  of  the  new  levies  was  that  a  new  assess- 
ment was  made  each  time  the  tax  was  taken.261  A  roll  of 
the  property  was  drawn  up  and  sent  to  the  exchequer 
which  thus  had  a  fairly  complete  "extent"  of  the  whole 
kingdom  along  certain  lines.  This  was  probably  done 
at  the  king's  wish,  not  at  that  of  the  barons,  for  the 
possession  of  such  an  extent  was  wholly  to  the  king's 
advantage.  The  new  assessment  would  prevent  the 
growth  of  immunities  and  keep  the  tax  increasing  with 
the  increasing  wealth  of  the  community.  Whether  the 
tax  did  so  increase  under  Henry  III  is  doubtful.  The 
thirteenth  of  1207  yielded  about  £60,000,  showing  an 
assessed  value  of  property  of  £780,000.262  The  fifteenth 
yielded  about  £57,000,  an  assessed  value  of  £850,000 ;  the 
fortieth  yielded  £16,000,  an  assessment  of  £640,000 ;  the 

for  in  that  respect  there  would  not  be  much,  if  any,  difference.  It 
lay  in  the  rate  of  assessment;  the  rate  of  two  or  three  shillings  per 
carucate  would  not  yield  as  much  as  a  fifteenth,  etc. 

258  On  the  demesne,  there  would  be  men  in  the  towns  who  would 
not  pay  the  carucage,  but  who  would  pay  the  tax  on  moveables. 
Some  men  would  not  pay  the  tallage   because  they  had   a  charter 
of  exemption  from  tallage;  they  would  not  be  exempt  from  the  tax 
on  moveables. 

259  See  above,  p.  136  and  Baldwin,  p.  38. 

260  Thus   the  thirteenth  in   1207  yielded   £60,000,  more   than   any 
scutage  or  carucage  yielded. 

261  Notice,  too,  that  the  thirtieth  of   1237   and  the  twentieth   of 
1269  were  taken  in  September,  when  the  largest  quantity  of  farm 
products  would  be  on  hand;  the  carucage  of  1220  was  to  be  levied  in 
June,  when  the  amount  of  land  to  be  put  under  cultivation  would 
be  the  greatest. 

262  See  above,  p.  91. 

354 


UNDER  JOHN  AND  HENRY  III 

thirtieth,  £22,000,  an  assessed  value  of  £660,000;  the 
twentieth  of  1270,  £32,000,  an  assessed  value  of 
£640,000.262  These  figures  may  be  incomplete,  for  the 
fifteenth  of  1275  yielded  £80,000,  an  assessed  value  of 
£1,200,000.264  The  increase  may  be  due  to  more  careful 
assessment,  for  John  and  Henry  III  did  not  always  insist 
that  the  property  be  assessed,  accepting  lump  sums 
instead. 

As  the  taxes  on  property  were  new,  old  immunities 
from  taxation  were  disregarded.  Thus  Richard  taxed 
the  churches  and  the  Cistercians.265  John  tried  to  tax 
the  beneficed  clergy,  but  does  not  seem  to  have  been 
successful  up  to  the  time  of  the  interdict.266  Under 
Henry  III,  the  clergy  became  regular  contributors  to  the 
king  for  property  which  in  part  at  least  had  never  been 
taxed  before.267  Beginning  with  1253,  they  paid  taxes 
to  the  king  in  eleven  different  years  either  on  the  assessed 
value  of  their  property  or  in  lump  sums  calculated  on 
the  basis  of  such  an  assessment.268  These  levies  were 
bitterly  resisted  for  two  reasons:  the  clergy  objected  in 
the  first  place  to  paying  any  levy  at  all  and  in  the  second 
to  the  method  of  levy.  In  the  first  case  they  failed.  It 
is  clear  that  they  preferred  to  grant  a  lump  sum  like  a 
donum  and  to  divide  it  up  themselves  among  the  different 
ecclesiastical  divisions,  thus  avoiding  the  assessment  of 

263  See  above,  pp.  169,  205,  218,  299. 

264  Ramsay,  Dawn  of  the  Constitution,  p.  536. 

265  Baldwin,  p.  70;  see  above,  p.  7. 

266  See  above,  p.  86.    During  the  interdict,  all  the  clergy  including 
all  kinds  of  religious  orders  were  taxed  (see  above,  p.  106). 

267  They  had  paid  on  their  land  held  by  military  tenure ;  religious 
houses  had  paid  dona.     The  beneficed  clergy  had  never  been  taxed 
by  the  king  before  1226  and   for  the  dona  on  religious  bodies  was 
substituted  a  tax  on  the  assessed  value  of  their  property. 

268  For  five  years  beginning  in  1253,  then  in  1264,  1266,  1268,  1269 
(see  above,  pp.  263,  290/.). 

355 


STUDIES  IN  TAXATION 

their  property.  In  this  they  were  partly  successful. 28£ 
The  alliance  between  the  pope  and  the  king  was  the 
immediate  cause  of  the  heavy  taxation  of  the  clergy  which 
began  in  1253.  But  the  levy  of  a  tax  on  the  assessed 
value  of  the  property  of  the  clergy  (other  than  their 
land  held  by  military  tenure)  was  no  new  thing.  At  least 
three  different  valuations  had  been  made  before.270  In 
three  or  four  other  cases,  a  lump  sum  had  been  levied  on 
the  whole  church,  had  been  divided  up  among  the  different 
bishoprics,  and  had  been  called  a  certain  fractional  part 
of  the  church  revenues.271  The  difference  between  the 
preceding  assessments  and  that  of  1253  lies  in  the  severity 
of  the  latter,272  which  however  did  not  give  the  full  value 
of  the  revenues.272  Thus  the  clergy  finally  became  subject 
to  royal  taxation. 

The  assessment  of  the  new  taxes  was  mainly  in  the 
king's  hands.27*  The  disbursement  of  the  money  was 
wholly  in  his  power.  Some  attempts  had  been  made  to 
restrain  him  in  this,  but  they  had  been  unsuccessful.275 

269  The  last  two  years  of  the  tenth  of  1253  was  compounded  for 
in  a  lump  sum  of  £52,000.     There  was  composition  by  individuals 
in  1266  (see  above,  pp.  278,  293)  and  a  kind  of  composition  was  made 
generally  for  the  tenth  of  1266  when  the  clergy  agreed  to  pay  a 
tenth  for  three  years  on  the  assessment  of  1254  rather  than  pay  a 
tenth  for  the  last  two  years  of  the  levy  on  a  new  assessment  (ibid., 
p.  293);  there  was  composition  by  the  clergy  in  1269  (ibid.,  p.  298). 

270  in  1216,  1226,  1229  (see  above,  pp.  121,  170,  177,  178). 

271  Perhaps  in  1240;  certainly  in  1245,  1246,  1252   (see  above,  p. 
264  if.)- 

272  See  above,  pp.  273,  275,  276. 

273  Graham,   in   E.   H.   R.,   XXIII,   434;   Hudson,   "The   Norwich 
Taxation   of   1254,"  in   Norf.   and  Norw.   Arch.   Soc.   Publ,   XVII 
(1910),  43-157. 

274  Except  in  the  taxes  on  the  clergy. 

275  For  the   fifteenth   of   1225,   see  above,   p.    167.     The   thirtieth 
was  to  be  spent  by  the  advice  of  some  of  the  magnates  who  were 
added  to  the  council;  it  was  also  to  be  stored  in  some  safe  place 
"ut  si  forte  velit  rex  a  proposito  .  .  .  resilire,  reddatur  unicuique  quod 
suum  est,  fideliter  distributum"   (Matthew  Paris,  III,  383,  410;  IV, 

356 


UNDER  JOHN  AND  HENRY  III 

The  main  significance  of  the  changes  thus  far  dis- 
cussed lies  in  the  growth  of  the  king's  power.  The  new 
taxes  gave  him  an  increased  revenue  over  which  he  had 
complete  control;  they  provided  him  with  a  definite  basis 
for  future  levies  and  with  the  machinery  for  their  assess- 
ment and  collection;  they  brought  under  contribution 
classes  which  formerly  paid  nothing  or  an  amount  greatly 
beneath  their  capabilities;  and  they  swept  away  the 
checks  on  his  taxing  power  which  lay  in  the  feudal  system. 
It  becomes  necessary  therefore  to  examine  the  way  in 
which  the  king's  power  was  checked  and  controlled. 

The  origin  of  that  control  is  to  be  found  in  the  feudal 
principle  that  for  the  levy  of  any  extraordinary  contri- 
bution by  the  lord  on  his  vassal,  the  consent  of  the  latter 
was  necessary.  Such  contribution  was  a  gracious  aid. 
It  is  unquestionable  that  this  principle  was  well  under- 
stood and  in  full  force,  and  was  not  the  shadow  of  a 
theory.276  Otherwise  it  is  difficult  to  see  why  John,  strong 
as  he  was,  never  ventured  to  levy  a  tax  on  property  in 
defence  of  which  he  could  not  allege  some  law,  though  he 
well  knew  how  great  an  addition  to  his  income  it  would 
make  to  do  so.277  The  case  of  the  thirteenth  of  1207  does 
not  form  an  exception  to  this  statement,  for  that  tax 

186).  In  1244,  the  magnates  asked  for  the  appointment  of  twelve 
councillors  satisfactory  to  them  by  whom  any  aid  which  might  be 
granted  should  be  expended  (ibid.,  IV,  363)  ;  another  account  makes 
the  number  of  councillors  four,  but  this  was  probably  another 
proposal  (ibid.,  p.  367;  Plehn,  Der  Politische  Charakter  von  Matheus 
Parisiensis,  p.  125).  In  1248  and  later,  the  magnates  demanded  the 
appointment  of  a  chancellor,  a  justiciar,  and  a  treasurer  with  their 
approval  (Matthew  Paris,  V,  5,  20). 

276  "For  the  shadow  of  the  feudal  fiction,  that  the  taxpayer  made 
a  voluntary  offering  to  relieve  the  wants  of  his  ruler,  seems  to  have 
subsisted  throughout  the  period"    (Stubbs,  Const.  Hist.,  I,  4th  ed., 
619). 

277  Thus  the  thirteenth  yielded  nearly  £60,000.     For  the  carucage 
of  1200,  the  excuse  was  that  it  was  a  relief  for  his  lands  in  France; 
the  seventh  was  a  fine  for  desertion   (see  above,  pp.  32,  62).     The 

357 


STUDIES  IN  TAXATION 

was  taken  with  the  consent  of  a  great  council  of  tenants 
in  chief.278  Historically  the  control  of  the  king  in  taxa- 
tion was  brought  about  by  the  growth  of  a  feeling  of 
corporate  unity  among  the  members  of  the  great  council. 
There  is  not  much  trace  of  this  in  questions  of  taxation 
except  among  the  clergy  before  the  reign  of  Henry  III.27S 
But  the  feeling  of  unity  in  general  began  to  grow  during 
John's  reign. 28C  In  1201  occurred  the  meeting  at  Leices- 
ter in  which  the  earls  agreed  not  to  follow  the  king  to 
France  unless  he  gave  them  back  their  rights.281  It  is  not 
known  whether  their  demands  were  granted,  but  in  some 
way  their  opposition  was  overcome,  for  they  accompanied 
the  king  to  France.282  In  1203,  there  was  a  plot  of  some 
of  the  barons  to  withdraw  from  the  king's  service,  which 
was  related  to  the  king  and  which  he  frustrated  in  part.283 
In  1205,  John  was  forced  at  a  meeting  of  the  magnates 
to  swear  to  preserve  the  rights  of  England.284  Some  kind 
of  united  action  is  indicated  this  same  year  when  John 
gave  up  his  invasion  of  France  at  the  wish  of  the  barons.285 
In  1207,  the  bishops  and  abbots  refused  to  allow  a  con- 

scutages  of  John  were  owed  to  the  king,  for  they  were  taken  in 
place  of  military  service,  consequently  consent  was  not  involved. 

278  See   above,   p.   87.     The   consent   was   individual   and   not   cor- 
porate; the  action  of  one  tenant  had  no  binding  force  on  another. 

279  The  cases  of  1163  and  1197  have  been  shown  by  Round  not  to 
involve  the  constitutional  discussion   of  taxation    (Feudal  England, 
pp.  497,  528). 

zso  For  a  discussion  of  this,  see  Plehn,  pp.  9-14. 

281  HOV.,   IV,    161. 

282  Adams,  Political  History  of  England,  1066-1316,  p.  398;  William 
of  Albini  who  was  one  of  the  leaders  is  found  with  the  king  in  this 
expedition  for  he  has  a  writ  of  quittance  for  scutage  in  1201   (Rot. 
Cane.,  pp.  89,  193,  305,  355). 

283  R0t.  Litt.  Pat.,  p.  29a. 

284  "ipse  quoque  rex,  convocatis  magnatibus  Angliae  ad  Oxonefor- 
diam,  jurare  compulsus  est,  quod  jura  regni  Angliae  de  eorum  consilio 
pro  posse  suo  conserverat  illaesa"  (Gerv.  Cant.,  Oesta  Regum,  II,  97). 

285  "prohibente    sibi    Cantuariensi    archiepiscopo    et    aliis    multis" 
(Wend.,  Ill,  182);  Cogg.,  p.  152;  Hist.  O.  le  Mar.,  1.  13103  ff. 

358 


UNDER  JOHN  AND  HENRY  III 

tribution  from  the  beneficed  clergy.286  In  1212,  the  king 
received  warning  of  a  combination  of  the  barons  against 
him,  a  warning  moreover  which  he  heeded.287  These  cases 
show  not  merely  discontent  with  John,  but  efforts  at 
united  action.  This  union  came  quickly  at  the  close  of 
the  struggle  with  the  pope;  in  1215,  a  strong  coalition 
of  the  barons  obtained  Magna  Carta  from  the  king.  The 
corporate  unity  of  the  barons  which  was  so  important 
a  factor  under  Henry  III  thus  began  to  appear  under 
John.  The  question  of  taxation  appears  at  the  close  of 
his  reign  as  one  of  the  causes  which  drew  a  section  of 
the  magnates  together.288 

It  is  necessary  therefore  to  ask  what  was  the  bearing 
on  taxation  of  the  provisions  in  Magna  Carta.  The 
articles  cover  all  the  levies  which  the  king  might  take  from 
his  military  tenants.  Only  two  terms  are  mentioned,  the 
auxilium  and  the  scutagium.  The  auxilium  used  loosely 
may  mean  any  kind  of  a  contribution,  a  donum,  a  thir- 
teenth, a  carucage,  or  a  scutage  in  the  strict  sense. 28£  The 
scutagium  in  the  same  way  may  mean  an  aid  to  marry  the 
king's  daughter  (1168);  to  ransom  the  king  (1194);  a 
gracious  aid  (1217);  to  knight  the  king's  son  (1253); 
and  the  composition  for  military  service.  It  is  likely  that 
in  articles  12  and  14,  both  terms  were  used  in  the  strict 
technical  sense,  the  scutage  as  the  composition  for  service 

286  "consilio    inito,    omnes    tarn    Cantuarienses    quam    Eboracenses 
metropolitan!  unanimiter   responderunt,  Anglicanam  ecclesiam  nullo 
modo  sustinere  posse.  .  .  .  Rex  ergo  saniori  usus  consilio,  exactionem 
illam  penitus  relaxavit"  (Wav.,  p.  258). 

287  Wav.,  p.  268;  Cov.,  II,  207;  Wend.,  Ill,  239. 

288  Cov.,  II,  217-218. 

289  See  above,  pp.  32,  61,  87.     The  money  paid  by  the  tenant  in 
Normandy  was  called  auxilium  exercitus.     The  tallage  on  the  towns 
for  the  Irish  expedition  was  called  auxilium  villarum  (Pipe  Roll,  12 
John,  passim).    The  fine  which  the  abbot  of  Malmesbury  paid  for  his 
knights  was  called  auxilium    (Rot.  Obi.,  pp.   13,  32).     The  scutage 
of  1204  was  called  auxilium  by  Wendover,  auxilia  militaria  (Wend., 
Ill,  175). 

359 


STUDIES  IN  TAXATION 

and  the  aid  as  the  gracious  aid  which  from  time  to  time 
the  vassal  might  make  to  relieve  the  wants  of  his  lord.290 

The  articles  provide  that  for  the  levy  of  a  scutage  or 
of  a  gracious  aid,  the  great  council  shall  be  summoned. 
An  interval  of  at  least  forty  days  shall  elapse  between 
the  date  of  the  summons  and  the  time  of  meeting.  Those 
who  answer  the  summons  shall  have  the  power  to  grant 
or  to  refuse  either  a  scutage  or  an  aid  and  their  decision 
shall  be  binding  on  those  who  failed  to  come.  The  regu- 
lation was  a  great  change  in  several  ways.  It  made  it 
obligatory  always  to  summon  the  great  council  for  aids 
and  scutages.  It  changed  an  occasional  practice  into  a 
rule.  The  aid  of  1207  had  been  taken  in  such  a  council. 
Whether  the  carucages  of  Richard  and  John  had  been 
granted  in  a  great  council,  we  do  not  know.  The  scutage 
of  1204  had  been  taken  in  such  an  assembly,  but  this  was 
not  John's  ordinary  procedure.  Another  change  was  that 
the  articles  substituted  corporate  for  individual  consent. 
Finally,  scutage  was  transformed  from  the  composition 
for  military  service  into  an  aid  which  the  king  could  only 
levy  with  the  consent  of  his  tenants. 

But  the  articles  were  not  satisfactory.  In  1217,  the 
barons  said  that  they  contained  grave  and  doubtful  mat- 
ters, which  seems  to  mean  that  the  barons  had  not  said  in 
1215  exactly  what  they  wished  to  say.  One  of  these 
doubtful  matters  was  the  question  of  corporate  consent 
in  connection  with  aids.  It  was  a  principle  not  fully 
accepted  at  the  close  of  the  reign  of  Henry  III.  A  case 
involving  it  arose  with  the  aid  of  1217,  levied  while  these 
articles  were  being  recast.  The  bishop  of  Winchester 
claimed  that  he  had  never  agreed  to  this  aid,  and  accord- 

290  That  they  are  used  in  this  strict  technical  sense  is  suggested 
by  the  fact  that  another  sort  of  aid  is  carefully  distinguished  from 
these  two  levies,  viz.,  the  aid  in  the  three  regular  cases,  to  knight  the 
king's  son,  etc. 

360 


UNDER  JOHN  AND  HENRY  III 

ingly  the  government  exempted  him  from  paying  it.291 
But  the  great  difficulty  lay  with  the  regulation  of  the 
scutage,  and  it  was  scutage  that  the  barons  had  chiefly 
in  mind.  There  can  hardly  be  a  doubt  of  the  truth  of 
this  last  statement,  for  the  final  version  of  the  charter 
mentions  scutage  only.  Hence  in  order  to  understand 
the  regulation  in  the  charter  of  1215,  we  must  consider 
the  character  of  John's  scutages  in  order  to  ascertain  the 
grievance  which  the  barons  sought  to  remedy.  At  the 
outset  it  must  be  remembered  that  all  of  John's  scutages 
were  scutages  in  the  strict  sense,  the  composition  for 
service;  they  were  not  aids.  The  right  to  take  them 
therefore  rested  on  the  king's  right  to  military  service 
from  his  tenants,  not  on  their  consent.  Now  the  barons 
had  no  wish  to  change  the  feudal  law  by  which  they  held 
their  fees.  It  follows  that  the  introduction  of  consent 
to  scutage  in  the  charter  of  1215  was  not  due  to  a  wish 
to  change  the  fundamental  principle  upon  which  the  levy 
was  based,  but  rather  to  correct  abuses  and  to  fix  the 
limits  within  which  it  could  be  legally  taken.  The  abuses 
had  arisen  in  connection  with  the  rate  of  scutage,  the 
fines,  and  the  occasions  on  which  scutage  had  been 
demanded. 

For  forty  years  before  the  accession  of  John,  the  rate 
of  scutage  had  not  exceeded  £1  (one  and  one-half  marks) 
per  fee.  John  had  immediately  raised  the  rate  to  two 
marks  and  finally  to  three  marks  per  fee.  In  addition, 
he  had  collected  fines  which  still  further  increased  the 
amount  of  composition,  taking  them  from  both  greater 
and  lesser  tenants.  The  fines  seem  to  have  become  heavier 
as  the  reign  went  on.  Levied  at  no  customary  rate, 
usually  in  a  lump  sum,  the  fine  threatened  to  become  a 
heavy  burden.  To  say  however  that  the  rate  of  scutage 
was  increased  from  one  and  one-half  to  three  marks  per 

201  See  above,  p.  127. 

361 


STUDIES  IN  TAXATION 

fee  and  that  the  average  rate  of  the  fine  (including 
scutage)  was  four  or  five  marks  per  fee  still  leaves  the 
grievance  almost  inexplicable,  for  the  price  of  a  knight's 
service  far  exceeded  any  rate  of  scutage,  or  the  average 
rate  of  the  fine.  The  difficulty  lies  in  the  fact  that  the 
amount  of  composition  has  been  compared  with  the  con- 
ventional number  of  fees  on  which  a  tenant  paid  scutage 
or  fine  at  the  exchequer,  in  the  belief  that  such  a  number 
equalled  the  quota  of  knights  which  the  tenant  would 
otherwise  have  furnished.  The  solution  will  be  found  if 
we  remember  that  military  service  had  become  reduced 
and  that  the  tenant's  contingent  therefore  was  smaller 
than  the  number  of  fees  on  which  his  scutage  was  com- 
puted. Thus  if  a  tenant  held  fifty  fees,  he  might  answer 
the  summons  to  the  host  with  ten  knights,  and  in  doing 
so  he  would  be  considered  to  have  performed  his  full  ser- 
vice. If  the  rate  of  scutage  were  two  marks,  his  scutage 
would  have  been  one  hundred  marks;  that  sum  of  money 
however  would  have  bought  the  exemption  from  service, 
not  of  fifty,  but  of  ten  knights.  The  rate  of  composition 
therefore  would  really  have  been,  not  two  marks,  but  ten 
marks  per  knight  actually  furnished,  an  amount  which 
would  in  some  cases  have  been  the  full  commutation  for 
service.  Now  the  king  was  increasing  the  rate  of  scutage 
and  he  was  levying  fines  as  well;  that  is,  he  had  broken 
away  from  the  customary  rate  of  composition.  There 
was  only  one  logical  limit  to  his  exactions,  a  rate  which 
should  be  the  equivalent  of  full  service  from  each  tenant 
in  chief,  or  something  like  ten  marks  per  fee.  There  were 
cases  in  which  he  had  actually  demanded  this  amount,292 
but  in  the  state  of  military  service  at  that  time,  a  rate  of 
ten  marks  per  fee  meant  in  cases  a  composition  of  twenty 
or  thirty  or  more  marks  per  knight  actually  furnished. 
Thus  the  increase  in  the  rate  of  scutage  and  the  fines 

292  See  above,  p.  98  and  below,  note  294. 

362 


UNDER  JOHN  AND  HENRY  III 


was  not  a  theoretical  but  a  real  grievance.295  Again,  when 
a  scutage  was  not  taken  throughout  the  kingdom  and 
when  the  host  was  not  summoned,  John  would  demand 
service  from  a  section  of  the  tenants  and  collect  fines 
from  such  as  did  not  wish  to  go.  In  1211,  no  general 
expedition  was  sent  to  France,  yet  the  king  summoned  the 
knights  of  Robert  Fitz  Walter  and  Eustace  de  Vescy, 
both  honors  being  in  hand,  and  the  tenants  on  the  fees 
of  bishops  in  exile,  sent  100  knights  to  France,  and  com- 
pelled the  rest  to  fine  at  ten  marks  per  fee.294  Moreover, 

293  That  tenants  served  with  only  part  of  their  nominal  contingents 
from  the  beginning  of  the  thirteenth  century,  see  above,  p.  302. 
The  difference  between  the  rate  of  scutage  and  the  composition  per 
knight  furnished  can  be  well  illustrated  from  the  scutage  of  Ireland, 
taken  at  three  marks  per  fee  (see  above,  p.  97).  The  following 
table  gives  the  number  of  fees  held  by  each  tenant,  the  scutage  which 
he  would  have  paid,  the  number  of  knights  furnished  in  the  cam- 
paign, and  the  rate  of  commutation  per  knight  furnished. 


Number 
of 

fees 


Scutage 
at  3m 


Earl  Warenne 
Robert  de  Tateshal 
William  Malet 
Earl  Aubrey  de  Ver 
Bishop  of  Salisbury 
Ralph  Sudley 
Robert  de  Turnham 
Henry  de  Oilli 
Geoffrey  Fitz  Peter 
Earl  of  Hereford  . 
Countess  of  Clare  . 
Nigel  de  Luvetot   . 
Robert  Marmiun    . 
Gilbert   Gaunt 
Gilbert   Peke 

This  explanation  makes  intelligible  the  minimum  rate  of  scutage 
at  one  mark  given  in  the  "Unknown  Charter  of  Liberties."  If  tenants 
served  with  their  full  contingents,  such  a  rate  would  be  absurd. 

29*  Dunst.,  p.  35. 


60 

180 

8 

25 

75 

3 

21 

63 

5 

30% 

90% 

6 

32 

96 

9 

3 

9 

2 

31 

93 

3 

32 

96 

2 

98% 

295 

10 

30% 

91% 

10 

9 

27 

2 

15 

45 

2 

25 

75 

3 

68% 

205 

6 

19 

57 

2 

Number 
of 
knights 
furnished 

Rate  of 
commutation 
per  knight 
furnished 

m 

8 

22% 

3 

25 

5 

12 

6 

15 

9 

10 

2 

4% 

3 

31 

2 

48 

10 

29% 

10 

9 

2 

13% 

2 

22% 

3 

25 

6 

34 

2 

28 

STUDIES  IN  TAXATION 

John  had  collected  scutage  when  the  feudal  law  would 
hardly  justify  him  in  so  doing.  That  he  was  able  to  do 
this  was  partly  due  to  the  fact  that  he  put  the  scutage 
in  charge  at  the  opening  of  the  campaign.  Then  whatever 
happened  afterward,  he  continued  to  collect  the  levy. 
In  1199  and  in  1201  there  was  little  or  no  fighting  after 
the  king  crossed  to  France,  yet  a  scutage  was  taken.292 
In  1204,  some  knights  were  sent  and  a  scutage  was  paid, 
but  the  king  neither  went  nor  led  the  host  to  France.296 
In  1205  only  a  picked  body  of  knights  was  sent ;  still  the 
king  collected  scutage.297  In  1209,  the  host  was  sum- 
moned and  the  king  led  it  against  the  king  of  Scots.  When 
the  two  hosts  met,  there  was  no  fighting;  a  treaty  was 
made.  Those  tenants  who  had  not  been  present  in  the 
host  paid  a  scutage.298  In  1214,  the  question  that  arose 
over  the  scutage  was  not  whether  it  had  been  granted  by 
the  tenants,  but  whether  the  king  was  legally  entitled  to 
it.  The  barons  claimed  that  they  did  not  owe  service 
across  the  seas  and  that  consequently  scutage  was  not 
due.299 

Indications  of  discontent  with  the  fines  and  scutages 
are  not  wanting  during  the  reign.  In  1199,  one  chronicler 
calls  the  scutage  of  that  year  a  grains  exactio  and  says 
that  never  before  had  more  than  twenty  shillings  been 
paid.30C  In  1206,  though  the  campaign  was  to  be  fought 
in  France,  the  rate  was  reduced  to  twenty  shillings.301  In 
1209  and  in  1211,  John  took  hardly  any  fines.  In  1214, 
no  fines  were  levied,  but  the  rate  was  raised  to  three 

zss  See  above,  pp.  21,  315. 
2»«  See  above,  p.  64. 

297  See  above,  p.  69. 

298  See  above,  p.  94. 

299  See  above,  p.  112. 
sooCogg.,  p.  101. 

301  The  concession,  if  it  was  a  concession,  was  more  apparent  than 
real.    Nearly  the  whole  levy  consisted  of  fines  (see  above,  p.  77/.). 

364 


UNDER  JOHN  AND  HENRY  III 

marks  per  fee.  Now  here  is  a  great  grievance,  felt  by 
the  barons  since  the  beginning  of  John's  reign  and  based 
on  a  legal  right  of  the  king,  the  law  of  military  service. 
The  tenant  was  bound  to  serve  the  king  in  war;  if  he 
wished  to  be  exempt,  he  must  pay  any  sum  that  the 
king  demanded,  or  forfeit  his  lands.  Thus  the  king  had 
the  right  to  much  more  than  he  took  in  fines  and  scutages. 
If  he  retained  this  right  in  entirety,  he  had  a  tremendous 
weapon  of  financial  extortion.  The  reform  therefore 
which  the  barons  desired  was  that  the  commutation  of 
military  service  should  be  uniform,  reasonable,  and  taken 
only  when  the  king  had  a  legal  right  to  it.  The  question 
at  issue  was  accordingly  not  whether  they  should  have 
the  right  to  grant  or  to  refuse  a  scutage.  The  tenants 
would  come  very  near  to  this,  especially  in  determining 
whether  or  not  a  scutage  was  legally  due,  yet  the  real 
point  to  be  decided  would  not  be  consent.  When  the 
king  had  waged  a  proper  campaign  at  the  head  of  the 
host,  there  would  be  no  question  of  his  right  to  take  a 
scutage.  This  can  be  well  illustrated  from  the  reign  of 
Henry  III.  Beginning  with  1242,  the  barons  refused 
again  and  again  to  grant  the  king  an  aid  except  those 
to  which  he  was  entitled  by  the  feudal  law.  Yet  during 
this  time,  three  scutages  were  taken,  that  of  Gascony  of 
1242,  that  of  Gannoc  of  1246,  and  that  of  Wales  of 
1258,  all  based  evidently  on  the  king's  right  to  military 
service. 

This  interpretation  of  articles  12  and  14  shows  why 
the  articles  were  dropped  by  the  barons.  As  to  the  aids, 
the  reason  was  because  corporate  consent  was  substituted 
for  individual  consent.  As  to  scutage,  it  was  because  this 
levy  had  been  changed  from  the  composition  of  military 
service  into  an  aid.  Moreover,  it  was  a  cumbrous  pro- 
cedure to  summon  the  great  council  to  discuss  a  scutage 
which  could  be  conveniently  declared  at  the  close  of  the 

365 


STUDIES  IN  TAXATION 

campaign.  As  many  of  the  tenants  in  chief  would  be 
present,  they  could  watch  over  their  rights  as  effectually 
as  in  a  specially  summoned  council.  The  charter  of  1217 
answers  to  the  desires  of  the  barons.  It  limited  the  regu- 
lation to  the  scutage,  a  word  which  might  be  interpreted 
to  mean  either  the  composition  for  military  service  or 
one  kind  of  an  aid.302  The  abuses  of  scutage  from  which 
they  had  suffered  under  Richard  and  John  were  to  be 
abandoned,  though  no  method  by  which  this  reform  was 
to  be  enforced  was  prescribed.  In  all  probability,  the 
omission  was  due  to  the  difficulty  of  framing  such  an 
article.  Furthermore,  John  was  dead  and  his  successor 
was  a  boy  who  was  controlled  by  the  barons.  Under  these 
conditions,  the  king  would  hardly  violate  the  law  which, 
though  well  understood,  was  hard  to  put  into  words.305 

The  expectation  of  the  barons  was  in  great  measure 
realized.  The  reign  of  Henry  III  shows  that  the  king 
was  restricted  in  determining  the  time  and  the  circum- 
stances under  which  a  scutage  would  be  due.  A  campaign 
against  a  rebel  might  sometimes  be  considered  a  sufficient 
cause  for  a  levy  but  not  always.304  Once  the  host  was 

302  "Scutagium   capiatur   de   cetero   sicut   capi   consuevit   tempore 
Henrici  regis  avi  nostri." 

303  Professor  Adams,  whose  interpretation  of  the  articles  I  have 
followed,  says:  "There  is   certainly  some   ground   for  thinking  that 
the  barons  may  have  been  conscious  that  in  their  statement  about 
scutage  in  clause  12  they  had  gone  farther  than  they  were  justified 
in  going  and  that,  therefore,  as  scutage  was  the  main  reason  for  the 
clause  the  whole  subject  was  omitted  in  1216,  with  a  general  refer- 
ence   to    dubitabilia,    because    no    satisfactory    substitute    could    be 
thought  of  in  the  hurried  conditions  of  the  moment,  and  later,  still 
troubled    by    the    difficulty    of    accurate    statement,    they    contented 
themselves   with   the  historical   reference   to  the  time  of   Henry   II, 
which  did   really  state  vaguely  but  accurately  what   they  wanted" 
(Origin  of  the  English  Constitution,  p.  223). 

so*  It  was  so  considered  in  1221  and  1224,  the  campaigns  of  Biham 
and  Bedford;  no  scutage  was  however  levied  in  1233  for  the  cam- 
paign against  Richard  Marshal. 

366 


UNDER  JOHN  AND  HENRY  III 

summoned  and  marched  to  Wales  and  once  it  was  led 
against  the  Scots,  but  there  was  no  fighting  in  either 
case  and  no  scutage  was  taken. 30J  Throughout  the  reign, 
the  scutage  was  regularly  levied  at  or  near  the  close  of 
a  campaign.  When  in  1229  and  1242,  the  king  wished 
to  take  it  at  the  outset,  he  did  so  with  the  consent  of  the 
barons. 30e  The  rate  gradually  rose  again  to  three  marks 
per  fee,  yet  it  seems  in  general  to  have  been  fixed  by  con- 
sultation with  the  barons.307  As  to  the  fines,  few  if  any 
were  taken  while  the  barons  were  in  control  of  the  govern- 
ment. Beginning  with  1229,  after  Henry  III  took  charge, 
fines  reappeared.  The  barons  were  therefore  unsuccessful 
in  making  scutage  the  sole  composition  for  service.  But 
the  importance  of  the  fines  diminished  after  1230  because 
the  struggle  then  was  no  longer  over  the  scutage,  but  over 
the  taxes  on  personal  property. 

As  to  the  aids,  although  the  machinery  for  summoning 
the  council  was  dropped  from  the  charter,  the  king  con- 
formed to  the  regulation  laid  down  in  1215.  He  never 
took  an  aid  except  by  the  consent  of  the  great  council. 
It  is  likely  that  this  was  due  to  the  growth  of  corporate 
feeling  among  the  magnates,  rather  than  to  a  desire  to 
conform  to  article  14.  However  that  may  be,  the  method 
followed  was  the  same  as  that  provided  in  the  dropped 
articles.  There  need  therefore  be  no  surprise  that  the 
articles  were  never  reinstated,  though  there  was  much 
discussion  of  taxation  under  Henry  III.  The  policy 
which  they  embodied  was  practically  carried  out.  The 
barons  in  the  course  of  the  reign  faced  a  new  problem, 
to  devise  a  method  to  prevent  the  king  from  levying  aids 
at  will  when  he  summoned  the  great  council.  The  charter 
of  1215  would  not  help  them  in  this. 

sos  The  expedition  against  Wales  in  1241 ;  against  the  Scots  in  1244. 

soe  See  above,  pp.  186,  227,  236. 

SOT  See  above,  note  306,  and  pp.  139,  151,  197,  246,  284. 

367 


STUDIES  IN  TAXATION 

At  the  opening  of  Henry  Ill's  reign,  the  king  had  no 
unrestricted  right  to  tax.  It  was  still  necessary  for  him 
to  get  the  consent  of  his  vassals  if  he  wished  a  contribution 
over  and  above  those  given  him  by  the  feudal  law,  but  it 
was  individual  consent,  not  corporate,  and  except  in 
the  case  of  an  aid  on  knights'  fees,  the  right  was  not 
protected  by  the  charter.308 

The  men  who  obtained  the  charter  were  the  tenants  in 
chief  described  in  clause  14.  It  was  thus  a  bargain,  a 

sos  Cf.  Stubbs,  Const.  Hist.,  II  (3rd  ed),  21:  "The  constitutional 
clauses,  those  touching  taxation  and  the  national  council,  were 
omitted.  .  .  .  The  reasons  for  this  course  are  obvious.  The  baronage 
was  for  the  moment  in  the  place  of  the  king;  to  limit  the  taxing 
powers  of  the  crown  would  be  to  tie  their  own  hands";  and  again, 
p.  27,  on  the  charter  of  1217:  "the  44th  (clause)  which  provides  that 
scutages  shall  be  taken  as  in  King  Henry's  time,  may  show  that  in 
some  points,  the  current  of  recent  history  had  been  retrogressive"; 
and  in  note  2,  p.  27:  "the  exact  force  of  the  clause  (44)  is  however 
uncertain:  if  as  may  be  thought,  it  was  to  restrict  the  amount  of 
scutage,  it  was  a  concession  on  the  part  of  the  crown;  if  it  means 
that  scutages  should  be  taken  without  asking  the  commune 
concilium,  it  was  a  retrograde  act.  The  scutage  taken  nearly  at 
this  time  was  assessed  by  the  commune  concilium."  Stubbs  believed 
that  John's  scutages  were  general  taxes,  levied  by  the  sole  authority 
of  the  king  and  that  in  theory  they  needed  the  consent  of  the 
barons;  hence  these  statements.  Scutage  however  under  John  was 
not  a  general  tax,  but  was  the  commutation  for  knight  service,  and 
as  such  did  not  in  law  need  the  consent  of  the  tenants.  The  scutage 
of  1217  should  not  be  classed  with  John's  scutages,  for  it  was  an 
aid  and  therefore  was  taken  and  had  to  be  taken  with  the  consent 
of  the  barons.  Clause  44  of  the  charter  of  1217  had  the  same  aim 
as  clauses  12  and  14  of  the  charter  of  1215;  it  undoubtedly  restricted 
the  amount  of  composition  which  the  king  could  demand,  as  Stubbs 
says,  though  it  did  not  provide  any  method  by  which  that  was  to 
be  accomplished.  But  the  reason  for  dropping  the  constitutional 
clauses  was  not  to  untie  the  hands  of  the  barons  in  the  matter  of 
taxation  (see  above,  p.  365).  Cf.  Petit-Dutaillis,  Studies  Supple- 
mentary to  Stubbs'  Constitutional  History,  pp.  141-142:  "This  word- 
ing (of  the  charter  of  1217)  clearly  proves  that  the  barons  .  .  .  only 
wished  to  be  secured,  in  some  way  or  other,  against  the  too  frequent 
return  and  the  raising  of  the  rate  of  scutage."  Cf.  McKechnie, 
Magna  Carta,  pp.  282-284. 

368 


UNDER  JOHN  AND  HENRY  III 

treaty  between  the  king  and  his  vassals.  There  existed 
among  the  latter  a  certain  feeling  of  unity  which  had 
been  called  into  existence  by  the  tyranny  of  John,  but 
was  not  yet  permanent.  Nor  did  the  barons  represent 
the  nation;309  they  were  not  the  regnum.  The  phrase 
"per  commune  consilium  regni,"  on  which  some  emphasis 
has  been  laid,310  as  representing  a  new  conception  of  their 
assembly  by  the  barons,  was  merely  a  form,  a  variant  of 
the  familiar  "per  consilium  baronum  nostrorum"  etc.31] 
The  settlement  of  the  question  of  taxation  was  yet  in  the 
future.  It  was  the  work  of  Henry  Ill's  reign  to  establish 
certain  precedents  concerning  the  levy  of  taxes,  to.  make 
this  corporate  feeling  permanent,  and  to  change  individual 
into  corporate  consent.  It  is  the  purpose  of  this  section 
to  outline  the  steps  by  which  this  was  accomplished. 

The  cause  of  the  conflict  between  the  king  and  his 
barons  which  resulted  in  the  control  of  taxation  by  parlia- 

309  Adams,  Pol.  Hist,  of  England,  1066-1216,  p.  437;  Petit-Dutaillis, 
Studies,  p.  129;  Norgate,  John  Lackland,  p.  234. 

310  "Der  dem  Parlament  mit  den  deutschen  Landstanden  gemein- 
same   Anspruch,   die   Vertretung   des   ganzen   Landes   zu   sein,   tritt 
bereits  in  der  Magna  Charta  hervor.     Hier  findet  sich  zum  ersten 
Male  die  spater  regelmassig  gebrauchte  Formel:  nach  dem  gemein- 
samen  Rate  des  Landes    (per  commune  consilium  regni),  wodurch 
die    Zustimmung    des    Parlaments    zu    Gesetzen    und    Verordnungen 
ausgedriickt  wird"  (Plehn,  p.  14). 

sii  John  issued  orders  per  consilium  baronum,  etc.  The  assize  of 
the  fifteenth  on  merchants,  1204,  per  consilium  fidelium  nostrorum 
(Rot.  Litt.  Pat.,  p.  42);  a  safe  conduct,  juxta  consilium  vestrum  et 
aliorum  fidelium  nostrorum  (ibid.,  p.  48b) ;  liberation  of  ships, 
communi  consilio  baronum  nostrorum  (ibid.,  p.  52b) ;  for  nine 
knights  to  equip  a  tenth,  cum  assensu  archiepiscoporum,  episcoporum, 
comitum,  baronum  et  omnium  fidelium  nostrorum  Angliae  (ibid., 
p.  55a)  ;  for  the  levy  of  the  thirteenth,  per  commune  consilium  et 
assensum  concilii  nostri  (ibid.,  p.  72b) ;  assize  concerning  clippers 
and  counterfeiters  of  money,  per  commune  consilium  regni  nostri 
(ibid.,  p.  54b)  ;  in  1194,  John  was  disseized  per  commune  consilium 
regni  (Hov.,  Ill,  236). 


STUDIES  IN  TAXATION 

ment  was  the  king's  lack  of  money.312  Henry  III  tried  to 
increase  his  insufficient  income  by  taxes  granted  by  the 
great  council,  and  the  frequency  and  severity  of  his 
demands  led  to  the  development  of  corporate  unity  among 
the  barons  and  to  a  measure  of  corporate  consent. 
According  to  Magna  Carta,  the  great  council  was  com- 
posed of  the  tenants  in  chief,  viz.,  the  clerical  tenants, 
the  greater  barons,  and  the  lesser  barons  or  knights. 
The  clergy  and  the  greater  barons  were  summoned  by 
individual  writs ;  the  knights  by  a  general  writ  trans- 
mitted to  them  by  the  sheriff.  This  body,  known  as  the 
great  council,  varied  greatly  in  its  composition  and  in 
the  conditions  under  which  it  met.  It  was  usually  spe- 
cially summoned,313  but  the  tenants  in  chief  in  the  host 
with  whom  the  king  would  consult  in  levying  a  scutage 
after  a  campaign  would  be  equally  regarded  as  the  great 
council.  When  the  body  was  specially  called  together, 
the  writs  of  summons  stated  the  time  and  place  of  the 
meeting.  The  business  to  be  transacted  was  described 
in  general  terms,  e.g.  "tractaturi  de  magnis  et  arduis 
negotiis  nostris."314  Magna  Carta  stated  that  forty  days 

»12  See  above,  p.  345.  A  great  difficulty  seems  to  have  been  that 
Henry  was  not  a  good  financier. 

3!3  E.g.  in  1225  when  the  fifteenth  was  granted;  "convocantur  .  .  . 
proceres  Angliae"  (Cov.,  II,  256) ;  "convenerunt  ...  ad  vocationem 
regis  magnates  Angliae  tarn  laici  quam  praelati"  (Wend.,  IV,  233) ; 
"misit  .  .  .  scripta  regalia,  praecipiens  omnibus  .  .  .  videlicet  archi- 
episcopis,  etc.,  ut  omnes  .  .  .  Londoniis  convenirent"  (Matthew  Paris, 
III,  380,  1237);  also,  ibid.,  IV,  180,  1242;  "regia  submonitione 
convocati"  (ibid.,  362,  1244) ;  "rex,  missis  literis  suis,  .  .  .  convocavit" 
(ibid.,  511,  1246)  ;  "per  scripta  sua  regia  .  .  .  convocari"  (ibid.,  590, 
1247) ;  "edicto  regio  convocata"  (ibid.,  V,  5,  1248)  ;  "vocavit  dominus 
rex  per  literas  suas"  (ibid.,  47-48,  1249)  ;  "ex  edicto  regio  convocati" 
(ibid.,  324,  1252);  in  1253,  1254,  1255  (ibid.,  V,  373,  493;  VI,  282). 

314  Select  Charters,  p.  282,  summons  to  the  bishop  of  Salisbury  in 
1205.  In  1237,  the  council  met  "credentes  se  vel  imperialia  vel  alia 
ardua  negotia  provisuros"  (Matthew  Paris,  III,  380) ;  in  1242,  a 
writ  summoned  the  members  of  the  great  council  to  London  to  delib- 
erate on  difficult  affairs  of  the  kingdom  which  admitted  no  delay; 

370 


UNDER  JOHN  AND  HENRY  III 

must  elapse  between  the  time  when  the  summons  was  sent 
out  and  the  meeting  of  the  council.  The  regulation  was 
not  always  observed,  but  about  a  month  was  regarded  as 
the  necessary  interval.315  As  to  those  who  attended  such 
a  council,  no  hard  and  fast  rule  can  be  laid  down.  The 
membership  varied  from  one  time  to  another.  Only  those 
came  who  were  summoned,  and  attendance  was  obligatory. 
But  a  summons  was  not  regarded  as  a  privilege,  for  in 
1258  an  arrangement  was  made  by  which  the  presence 
of  all  would  not  be  necessary.316  If  a  tenant  failed  to 
come,  an  excuse  was  given  or  a  substitute  sent.317  Not  all 
were  always  summoned.  In  1220,  the  carucage  was 
granted,  according  to  the  king's  writ,  by  all  the  magnates 
and  faithful  of  the  realm.  Yet  the  tenants  of  Yorkshire 
were  neither  present  nor  summoned.318  In  1229,  the  earls 
and  barons  were  summoned  to  meet  at  Northampton  and 
the  bishops  met  later  at  London.319  Sometimes  the  tenants 
were  unwilling  to  take  any  action  because  of  the  absence 

this  was  to  get  an  aid  for  the  invasion  of  Gascony  (ibid.,  IV,  180) ; 
in  1248  "edicto  regio  convocata  totius  regni  Angliae  nobilitas  convenit 
Londoniis";  that  the  writ  did  not  state  that  an  aid  was  to  be  asked 
is  indicated  by  Matthew  Paris:  "et  cum  proposuisset  dominus  rex 
(non  enim  proposition  suum  latuit  universitatem)  pecuniare  auxilium 
postulare  etc."  (ibid.,  V,  5,  6). 

sis  In  1253,  the  regents  received  the  king's  letters  at  Christmas 
to  summon  the  council  on  January  13  to  get  an  aid  for  him.  The 
interval  was  too  short,  so  it  was  summoned  for  January  27  (ibid., 
V,  423,  giving  the  date  of  the  meeting;  ibid.,  VI,  282,  for  the  state- 
ment of  the  regents). 

3i6  There  were  three  parliaments  to  meet  whether  summoned  or 
not  and  composed  of  twelve  men  chosen  by  the  commonalty  (Select 
Charters,  p.  396). 

SIT  Thus  in  the  April  parliament  of  1253,  "archiepiscopus  vero 
Eboracensis  .  .  .  excusavit  se,  asserens  se  esse  remotum  et  senem"; 
"pro  Cestrensi  autem  absente  valitudo  manifeste  allegavit"  (Matthew 
Paris,  V,  373).  The  cases  of  substitutes  relate  to  the  clergy  (ibid., 
IV,  185,  372;  Wilkins,  II,  20.) 

sis  Select  Charters,  p.  352;  Shirley,  I,  151. 

3i9  Madox,  I,  607,  n.  z. 

371 


STUDIES  IN  TAXATION 

of  some  members.  In  1232,  in  response  to  the  king's 
demand  for  an  aid,  the  clergy  asked  for  a  postponement 
of  the  matter  because  many  bishops  and  abbots  were 
absent.320  In  1249,  the  absence  of  Richard  of  Cornwall 
prevented  the  barons  from  taking  action  on  the  demands 
which  they  had  previously  made  of  the  king.323  In  1252, 
the  clergy  refused  to  act  on  account  of  the  absence  of  the 
archbishops  of  Canterbury  and  York.322  In  1254,  at  the 
Easter  meeting  of  the  magnates  in  London,  a  demand  for 
money  was  presented  from  the  king  who  was  in  Gascony. 
The  barons  replied  that  they  had  now  been  waiting  for 
three  weeks  for  earl  Richard  and  some  other  magnates 
who  delayed  in  coming.  No  further  action  was  taken, 
except  to  repeat  that  they  would  come  personally  to  the 
king's  aid  as  they  had  promised  in  a  previous  meeting.825 
In  1255,  the  clergy  refused  a  demand  for  money  on 
account  of  the  absence  of  the  archbishop  of  Canterbury 
and  of  some  bishops.824  In  this  same  year,  the  barons 
refused  to  take  any  action  on  a  request  for  money,  because 
their  peers  had  not  been  summoned  to  the  council.328 

There  were  no  fixed  dates  on  which  the  council  met, 
but  favorite  times  were  early  in  February,  after  Easter 
and  after  Michaelmas.  Nor  were  the  meetings  always 
held  at  the  same  place,  though  toward  the  end  of  the 
reign,  London  and  Westminster  were  often  selected.32* 

When  the  council  met,  the  initiative  was  taken  by  the 
king.  The  aid  was  asked  for  either  by  the  king  in  person 

320  See  above,  p.  200. 

321  Matthew  Paris,  V,  73. 

322  ibid.,  328. 

323  Ibid.,  424,  440. 

324  Matthew  Paris,  V,  532. 

825  "Et  responsum  fuit  quod  omnes  tune  temporis  non  fuerunt 
juxta  tenorem  magnae  cartae  suae  vocati,  et  ideo  sine  paribus  suis 
tune  absentibus  nullum  voluerunt  tune  responsum  dare,  vel  auxilium 
concedere  vel  praestare"  (ibid.,  520). 

326  Other  places  were  Winchester,  Oxford,  and  Northampton. 

372 


UNDER  JOHN  AND  HENRY  III 

or  by  deputy.  The  tax  was  not  merely  demanded ;  reasons 
for  its  necessity  were  always  given  to  persuade  the  barons 
to  make  the  grant.  Sometimes  the  demand  was  for  a 
special  kind  of  tax.  In  1225,  Hubert  de  Burgh  asked  for 
a  fifteenth;  in  1237,  a  thirtieth  was  requested;  in  1257, 
a  tenth  from  the  clergy  for  two  years.327  The  council 
might  substitute  a  different  kind  of  an  aid  for  the  one 
which  the  king  wanted.828  Discussion  always  followed, 
which  was  usually  secret.329  It  ended  in  all  cases  in  a 
definite  reply  which  a  committee  might  announce  to  the 
king.  In  case  the  response  of  the  magnates  was  unsat- 
isfactory, the  king  communicated  further  with  the  mem- 

327  in   1225,   Hubert  de   Burgh   explained  why   an   aid   should  be 
made    (Wend.,  IV,  99);  in  1237,  William  de  Ralegh  spoke  "quasi 
mediator  inter   regem   et   regni   magnates";    the  king  was   however 
present  and  later  spoke  to  the  magnates,  "quod  cum  rex  audisset 
(complaints    of   the    magnates)  .  .  .  pollicebatur"    (Matthew    Paris, 
III,  380-382)  ;  in  1242,  the  king  seems  to  have  addressed  the  barons, 
for  they  "contradixerunt  igitur  regi  in  faciem"   (ibid.,  IV,  182);  in 
1244,  the  king  asked  "ore  proprio";  in  1245,  "in  propria  persona"; 
in  1246,  "ore  proprio"   (ibid.,  362,  373,  526)  ;  in  1248,  the  king  was 
present  and  probably  made  the  demand:  "cum  proposuisset  dominus 
rex.  .  .  .  Haec  (the  complaints)  cum  audisset  dominus  rex,  confusus 
in  semetipso  erubuit"   (ibid.,  V,  6,  7) ;  in  1255,  "prius  rex  alloque- 
batur   fratrem   suum"    (ibid.,  520) ;   in   1257,   "rex  ...  in   audientia 
totius  populi  .  .  .  ait"  (ibid.,  623). 

328  "cum    nullo    modo    ad    aliam    formam    (auxilii)    possent    flecti 
(magnates)    (ibid.,  IV,  373);  in  1257,  the  clergy  granted  an  aid  of 
£52,000  which  was  not  what  the  king  wanted. 

329  The  cases  in  which  the  king  was  present  seem  to  have  been 
exceptional.     In  1225,  the  discussion  concerning  the  fifteenth  seems 
to  have  taken  place  in  the  presence  of  the  justiciar  who  represented 
the  king  (Wend.,  IV,  100) ;  this  would  hardly  be  a  fair  example  of 
the  usual  practice,  for  the  king  was  young  and  his  representative, 
Hubert  de  Burgh,  was  one  of  the  tenants  in  chief.    There  are  cases 
later  in  which  the  magnates  sometimes  did  not  hesitate  to  express 
openly  their  opinions  concerning  the  king's   demand,  e.g.   in   1237; 
perhaps   in   1248;  in   1255,  the  earl  of  Cornwall  was  first  asked  to 
contribute   and   refused;   the   other   barons   then   refused   to   give   a 
decision  on  account  of  the  absence  of  their  peers   (Matthew  Paris, 
III,  381;  V,  6,  21,  520). 

373 


STUDIES  IN  TAXATION 

bers  of  the  council  in  person  or  by  representatives,  at 
times  approaching  them  singly  in  the  hope  of  breaking 
down  their  opposition.330  There  is  a  suggestion  that  the 
barons  conferred  together  after  the  demand  for  a  fortieth 
in  1232,  because  the  earl  of  Chester  is  made  to  reply 
"for  the  magnates."331  In  1237,  the  magnates  withdrew 
to  discuss  the  aid  while  the  king  waited  in  the  hall  to  hear 
their  decision.332  In  1244,  after  hearing  the  royal  demand, 
the  barons  made  no  answer  except  that  they  would  delib- 
erate. The  clergy  and  the  laity  met  separately  and  finally 
appointed  committees  to  draw  up  a  common  reply.  In 
one  of  the  parliaments  of  that  year,  the  king  sent  repre- 
sentatives to  plead  with  the  clergy.  Suddenly  he  himself 
appeared  before  them  and  begged  for  the  aid,  but  with- 
drew when  met  with  the  reply  that  they  would  consult 
upon  it.  The  answer  was  postponed  to  a  later  meeting,333 
which  was  held  the  next  year  when  the  king  renewed  his 
petition  for  aid,  summoning  the  magnates  day  after  day 
and  making  many  promises,  in  person  or  by  deputy.334 
In  1252,  the  king  was  clearly  absent  from  the  discussion; 
his  representatives  labored  with  the  bishops  who  declined 
to  accede  to  his  demand  for  aid  and  announced  their 
refusal  to  him  by  a  committee.  The  king  then  sent  word 
changing  his  demand  to  a  request,  but  the  decision  of  the 
prelates  remained  unaltered.335  In  April,  1255,  the  barons 
decided  to  make  certain  demands  on  the  king  and  to  post- 
pone further  action  till  September  to  see  if  he  would 
perform  what  they  had  asked.  This  decision  was  prob- 

330  For  cases  of  asking  the  magnates  singly  for  an  aid,  see  above, 
pp.  224,  249. 

331  "pro  magnatibus  loquens"   (Wend.,  IV,  233). 

332  Matthew  Paris,  III,  380-383. 

333  ibid.,  IV,  362-366. 

334  "circa  quod  de  die  in  diem  convenit  eos  dominus  rex,  turn  in 
propria  persona,  turn  per  internuntios  sollempnes,  per  quos  promisit 
etc."  (Matthew  Paris,  IV,  372-373). 

sss  Ibid.,  V,  324-328,  334,  336. 

374 


UNDER  JOHN  AND  HENRY  III 

ably  made  at  a  meeting  from  which  the  king  was  absent, 
for  it  was  announced  to  him  ex  parte  universitatis.330 

The  reason  for  secret  deliberation  was  probably  the 
unwillingness  of  the  magnates  to  oppose  the  king  singly 
to  his  face.  Not  everyone  would  dare  risk  the  royal 
displeasure  even  by  a  smaller  display  of  independence 
than  was  made  by  the  earl  marshal  when  he  called  the 
king  a  liar,  unless  he  knew  that  the  magnates  as  a  whole 
would  support  him.  Thus  in  1226,  when  the  pope's 
nuncio,  Otho,  demanded  aid  for  the  pope,  the  clergy 
retired  and  decided  on  a  common  reply  which  was  deliv- 
ered by  one  of  their  number.337  No  individual  prelate 
wished  to  draw  on  himself  the  papal  hostility.  In  1242, 
the  barons  could  contradict  the  king  to  his  face  without 
first  going  into  special  session  because  they  had  sworn 
beforehand  not  to  grant  an  aid.33S  The  fear  of  the  king 
is  plainly  shown  in  the  statement  of  Matthew  Paris  that 
the  prelates  did  not  wish  to  respond  with  an  out  and  out 
refusal.335  In  1256,  when  the  prelates  were  about  to 
make  a  common  reply  by  one  of  their  members,  Rostand 
stopped  the  speaker,  demanding  that  each  one  reply  for 
himself  so  that  the  king  and  the  pope  might  know  the 
opinion  of  each.  This  was  what  the  prelates  wished  to 
avoid.340  The  difference  in  attitude  of  the  barons  when 
they  faced  the  king  and  when  they  faced  another  of  whom 
they  were  not  afraid  is  seen  in  the  council  of  1229  when 
the  papal  nuncio  demanded  tenths  for  the  pope.  The 
king  in  the  council  kept  silent,  as  he  had  been  persuaded 

336  Matthew  Paris,  V,  493-494. 

337  "cum  super  rebus   propositis   diutius   deliberassent,   responsum 
suum  in  ore  magistri  Johannis  .  .  .  communiter  posuerunt"   (Wend., 
IV,  115). 

sss  Matthew  Paris,  IV,  181. 

339  "sed  ne  f  rontose  viderentur  cum  praecisa  negatione  respondisse 
domino  suo  regi"  (ibid.,  V,  328). 
539-540. 

375 


STUDIES  IN  TAXATION 

by  Gregory  IX  not  to  oppose  the  demand.  The  clergy 
deliberated  and  finally  yielded,  fearing  excommunication 
or  interdict.  But  the  laity  spoke  out  boldly  at  once  and 
refused  the  grant.341 

The  meetings  of  the  council  were  not  long.  The  chroni- 
clers usually  measure  them  by  days.342  They  became 
longer  in  the  latter  part  of  Henry  Ill's  reign,  not  because 
more  business  was  transacted,  but  because  of  the  king's 
attempts  to  overcome  the  opposition  of  the  magnates  to 
granting  aid.  In  1229,  the  council  which  considered  the 
tenth  lasted  four  days  ;843  in  1237,  four  days  ;344  in  1244, 
Matthew  Paris  says  that  the  king  kept  the  magnates  at 
the  council  many  days  as  if  wishing  to  weary  them  out, 
but  this  long  council  lasted  only  seven  days.345  In  1253, 
the  deliberations  lasted  fifteen  days  and  more;346  in  1254, 
at  least  three  weeks;347  in  1255,  a  month;348  and  in  1258, 
the  first  parliament  was  held  from  April  2  to  May  5.34S 

Just  as  the  tenants  who  were  summoned  were  obliged 
to  attend,  so  they  were  not  allowed  to  leave  without  the 
king's  permission.  Thus  the  latter  was  able  to  prolong 
the  period  of  the  council  much  beyond  the  desires  of  the 
magnates  in  the  hope  of  breaking  down  their  resistance 
to  his  demands  for  aid.350 

3*1  "comites  vero  et  barones  ac  laid  omnes  plane  decimas  se  daturos 
contradixerunt"  (Wend.,  IV,  201). 

342  "per  plures  dies  protraheret  eos  dominus  rex,  volens  eos  quasi 
taedio   affectos   flectere   ad   consensum"    (Matthew   Paris,    IV,   363) ; 
"circa  quod  de  die  in  diem  convenit  eos"  (ibid.,  372) ;  "per  plures  .  .  . 
dies"  (ibid.,  594).    The  council  which  granted  the  thirteenth  to  John 
in  1207  lasted  a  week  (see  above,  p.  87). 

343  Wend.,  IV,  201. 

s**  Matthew  Paris,  III,  382;  perhaps  a  week  (see  above,  p.  214). 
346  Ibid.,  IV,  365. 

346  Ibid.,   V,  374. 

347  ibid.,  440. 

348  Ibid.,   521. 

34»  Ibid.,  676,  688. 

sso  in  1226,  after  the  pope's  demand  had  been  refused  by  the  king, 

376 


UNDER  JOHN  AND  HENRY  III 

It  is  a  matter  of  great  interest  to  know  whether  the 
knights,  the  lesser  tenants,  continued  to  attend  the  great 
council.  In  the  meetings  which  were  specially  summoned, 
the  notices  given  in  the  writs  and  chronicles  afford  no 
evidence  to  show  that  they  were  in  attendance  during  the 
reign  of  Henry  III  up  to  1248.  Two  terms  used  in 
describing  the  members  of  the  council  may  relate  to  the 
knights :  barones  and  milites.  The  term  barones  might 
mean  any  tenant  in  chief,  as  barones  majores  et  minores; 
but  it  might  also  mean  the  great  lay  tenants  only.351  In 
some  of  the  descriptions,  it  seems  to  be  used  in  the 
restricted  sense.  The  term  milites  in  the  writs  really 
tells  nothing  as  to  the  composition  of  the  council.  When 
the  king  is  said  to  grant  liberties  to  classes  among  whom 
the  knights  are  mentioned,  it  does  not  mean  that  they 
were  present.  Since  the  liberties  applied  to  several  classes, 

the  prelates  and  the  lay  magnates,  "concessa  est  omnibus  licentia 
recedendi"  (Wend.,  IV,  124) ;  in  1232,  "et  sic,  petita  licentia,  laici 
omnes  recesserunt"  (ibid.,  233) ;  in  1252,  the  elect  of  Winchester  came 
to  the  king,  "ut  vale  dicto  licentiatus  repatriaret  .  .  .  Cui  (regi)  ait 
electus:  Domine,  mihi  videtur  solvitur  concilium;  patefactum  est 
vobis,  prout  mihi  videtur,  praelatorum  incommutabile  propositum.  In 
procinctu  sum,  ut  de  vestra  licentia  redeam  praematurus"  (Matthew 
Paris,  V,  332)  ;  in  1270,  the  prior  of  Worcester  had  returned  home 
without  the  king's  permission  and  Henry  III  wrote  to  him,  "de 
tractatu  nobiscum  habendo  supersedimus  ad  praesens  propter  quod 
vos  a  curia  nostra  sine  colloquio  nobiscum  habito  recessistis"  (Raine, 
p.  24).  Cf.  the  case  of  1244;  the  lay  magnates  had  gone  home,  but 
the  king  kept  the  clergy  and  tried  to  break  down  their  opposition  to 
a  grant.  Finally  he  asked  them  to  come  one  day  more;  they  were 
unwilling  and  "sumo  mane  recedentes,  retia,  quibus  aliquando  invol- 
vebantur,  prudenter  evaserunt.  Et  murmurante  et  rege,  solutum  est 
concilium"  (Matthew  Paris,  IV,  366).  This  was  however  unusual. 
351  In  Magna  Carta,  clause  2,  is  the  statement  concerning  the  relief 
of  an  earl,  a  baron,  and  a  knight;  in  clause  21,  is  the  provision  that 
earls  and  barons  shall  only  be  amerced  by  their  peers.  In  1222,  an 
aid  was  levied  for  the  relief  of  the  Holy  Land,  as  follows:  on  each 
earl,  3  marks;  each  baron,  1  mark;  each  knight,  1  shilling  (Rot.  Litt. 
Glaus.,  I,  516b). 

377 


STUDIES  IN  TAXATION 

these  classes  were  all  mentioned.352  When  the  knights 
among  others  are  said  to  grant  a  tax  to  the  king,  we 
seem  to  be  getting  a  list  of  the  taxpayers,  men  who, 
according  to  the  feudal  theory,  would  have  to  give  their 
consent  to  the  tax,  not  an  enumeration  of  the  men  who 
actually  had  a  part  in  the  deliberations  of  the  council.353 
This  does  not  mean  that  the  knights  did  not  attend,  only 
that  these  notices  do  not  prove  their  presence.  On  the 
other  hand,  the  fact  that  representatives  were  introduced 
at  the  close  of  the  reign  is  not  necessarily  evidence  that 
the  knights  had  ceased  to  attend.  All  through  the  reign 
the  exchequer  believed  that  much  land  held  by  military 
service  was  not  paying  scutage,  that  its  holders  were  not 
taking  up  knighthood,  and  that  tenants  were  fining  to 
escape  becoming  knights.  Inquests  were  held  to  get  hold 
of  men  who  should  hold  by  knights'  service,  but  without 
success.354  The  use  of  representatives  was  probably 
another  way  of  bringing  these  men  under  contribution. 

There  are  however  references  to  the  knights  in  the 
great  council.  Article  14  of  the  charter  of  1215  mentions 
them.  In  this  connection,  it  should  be  recalled  that 
although  this  article  was  later  dropped,  the  policy 

352  gee  above,  pp.  161,  162,  214. 

353  See  above,  pp.  160,  200,  214. 

35*  See  above,  pp.  211,  233,  in  1235  and  1242.  The  barons  put  a 
stop  to  these  inquests  in  1245  (see  above,  pp.  242,  243).  Inasmuch 
as  the  king  held  one  great  council  for  the  whole  kingdom,  it  would 
probably  be  a  burden  for  the  knights  to  attend  and  we  might  expect 
therefore  that  the  king  would  exempt  them  from  being  present. 
There  is  a  case  which  has  some  similarity  to  this;  in  1235,  heads  of 
small  religious  houses  were  summoned  to  meet  the  king  to  confer 
about  an  aid,  not  in  one  place,  but  in  different  places,  convenient 
to  them,  throughout  the  kingdom  (see  above,  p.  212).  Yet  on  the 
other  hand,  the  king  summoned  all  the  sergeants  to  meet  him  at  West- 
minster on  a  certain  day  (Close  Rolls,  no.  59,  m.  24  d).  It  would 
be  as  burdensome  for  them  to  attend  as  for  the  knights,  yet  the  king 
summoned  the  sergeants  to  meet  at  one  place. 

378 


UNDER  JOHN  AND  HENRY  III 

embodied  in  it  seems  to  have  been  carried  out.358  In  1248, 
Matthew  Paris  says  that  knights  were  present  at  a  meet- 
ing of  the  great  council.356  In  1254,  the  knights  were 
absent,  but  the  great  barons  in  response  to  the  king's 
demand  for  an  aid  refused  to  answer  for  them.357  In 
1255,  the  barons  declined  to  take  any  action  on  a  tax  on 
account  of  the  absence  of  their  peers,  a  term  which  may 
refer  to  the  knights.358  At  the  parliament  of  Oxford  in 
1258,  the  knights  were  present.359  All  the  cases  men- 
tioned are  of  councils  specially  summoned  for  purposes 
of  deliberation.  But  the  tenants  in  chief  met  and  delib- 
erated at  other  times,  though  they  were  not  primarily 
summoned  for  that  purpose,  viz.,  when  the  host  was  called 
together.  On  such  occasions  there  is  no  doubt  that  the 
lesser  tenants  met  all  through  Henry  Ill's  reign.360  These 
would  be  considered  meetings  of  the  great  council  and  at 
them  the  tenants  present  discussed  taxation.361  It  seems 
fair  to  conclude  therefore  that  the  lesser  tenants  continue 
to  attend  the  great  council. 

The  council  did  not  act  as  a  unit  in  taxation.  The 
division  into  groups  which  is  seen  in  Edward  I's  reign, 
when  barons,  clergy,  knights,  and  towns  each  made  a 
separate  grant,  begins  to  be  seen  early  in  the  thirteenth 

sss  See  above,  p.  366. 

350  "edicto  regio  convocata  totius  regni  Angliae  nobilitas  convenit 
Londoniis.  .  .  .  Advenerunt  igitur  illuc,  excepta  baronum  et  militum, 
nobilium,  necnon  et  abbatum,  priorum,  et  clericorum  multitudine 
copiosa,  novem  episcopi  cum  totidem  comitibus"  (Matthew  Paris, 
V,  5). 

357  See  above,  p.  261. 

sss  Matthew  Paris,  V,  520-521. 

359  "totius  regni  magnatibus  cum  equis  et  armis  majoribus  et 
minoribus"  (Burton,  p.  438). 

sec  Because  they  continued  to  serve  in  the  host  (see  above,  p.  304). 

361  Thus  scutage  was  determined  at  the  close  of  campaigns :  1223, 
1224,  1228,  1231,  1245,  1257  (see  above,  pp.  144,  151,  174,  191,  197, 
246,  284).  The  host  was  summoned  to  meet  in  October,  1252,  and 
when  it  met  the  question  of  an  aid  was  discussed  (ibid.,  p.  253). 

379 


STUDIES  IN  TAXATION 

century;  the  two  classes  which  appeared  were  the  clergy 
and  the  barons.  Thus  the  feeling  of  corporate  unity, 
when  it  developed,  was  strongest  among  members  of  a 
certain  class,  rather  than  among  the  members  of  the 
council  as  a  whole.  This  is  most  clearly  seen  in  the  case 
of  the  clergy.  The  prelates  were  tenants  in  chief,  but 
they  were  also  officials  of  the  church  and  it  was  the  latter 
bond  which  was  chiefly  strengthened.362  In  John's  reign, 
a  certain  distinction  had  already  been  made.  Fines  for 
exemption  from  military  service  were  paid  by  all  tenants, 
but  not  generally  by  the  bishops.  Instead  of  paying 
the  thirteenth  on  the  assessed  value  of  their  property,  the 
clergy  seem  to  have  fined  for  it.363  In  1224,  the  clergy 
made  an  independent  grant  of  a  carucage  to  the  king 
while  the  lay  tenants  paid  scutage.36*  In  1225,  the  prel- 
ates paid  the  fifteenth,  but  were  allowed  to  assess  and 
collect  it  on  their  demesne  lands.365  In  1229,  the  bishops 
did  not  pay  a  scutage,  but  made  a  grant  of  an  auxilium 
and  were  given  letters  patent  affirming  that  this  grant 
should  not  prejudice  them  in  the  future.36*  In  1231,  all 
the  clergy  owing  military  service  made  a  grant  of  this 
kind  and  received  similar  letters.387  In  1232,  the  clergy 
and  laity  deliberated  separately  on  the  aid;  the  laity 
refused  a  grant  and  were  allowed  to  withdraw,  while  the 
clergy  obtained  a  delay  because  many  of  their  number 
were  absent.368  In  1235,  the  clergy  obtained  writs  declar- 
ing that  the  grant  of  aid  should  not  constitute  a  precedent 

362  See  Stubbs,  Const.  Hist.,  II  (3rd  ed),  175,  on  the  development 
of  the  system  of  estates. 

sea  The  account  of  the  thirteenth  is  given:  the  common  thirteenth, 
the  fines  of  abbots,  and  the  dona  of  bishops  (see  above,  p.  89). 

364  See  above,  p.  148  ff. 

ses  See  above,  p.  166. 

see  See  above,  p.  189. 

367  See  above,  p.  192. 

368  See  above,  p.  200. 

380 


UNDER  JOHN  AND  HENRY  III 

for  future  demands  by  the  king.369  In  1237,  the  thirtieth 
was  granted  first  by  the  archbishop  of  Canterbury  and  his 
prelates,  and  all  the  clergy  were  allowed  to  assess  and 
collect  it  on  their  lands.370  In  1242,  the  bishops  and  in 
1269  all  the  clergy  received  writs  that  the  aid  should  not 
prejudice  their  rights.371  In  1244,  clergy  and  laity  delib- 
erated separately  and  each  body  agreed  to  do  nothing 
without  the  other.372  In  1252,  the  barons  stated  that 
their  reply  to  the  king's  demand  for  an  aid  depended  on 
the  reply  of  the  prelates.373  In  1254,  the  clergy  and  the 
barons  made  separate  replies  to  the  king's  request  for  aid 
in  Gascony.374  In  1256,  bishops  refused  a  separate  grant 
to  the  king  from  their  baronies.375  The  growth  of  unity 
among  the  clergy  was  furthered  by  the  special  taxes 
which  they  paid,  first,  to  the  pope  and  later  to  the  king, 
levied  partly  on  property  which  laymen  did  not  have 
(spiritualities)  ;  the  barons  moreover  did  not  aid  them  to 
prevent  this  taxation.376  Thus  several  grants  of  money 
were  made  by  the  clergy  while  the  lay  tenants  were  un- 
taxed.377  By  the  close  of  Henry  Ill's  reign,  the  clergy 

369  See  above,  p.  209. 

370  See  above,  p.  215. 

371  See  above,  pp.  236,  296,  297. 

372  See  above,  p.  374. 

373  "eorum    (i.e.    baronum)    responsio    a    praelatorum    responsione 
dependebat,  nee  voluerunt  ab  eorum  assertione  discrepantes  seques- 
trari"   (Matthew  Paris,  V,  335). 

374  See  above,  p.  261. 

375  Matthew  Paris,  V,  553. 

3-6  "magnates  matri  suae  ecclesiae  non  compatiebantur"  (ibid.,  V, 
526).  This  was  in  1255  when  Rostand  was  demanding  aid  for  the 
king  by  papal  authority.  See  above,  p.  263  ff .,  for  the  taxes  which 
the  clergy  had  to  pay  to  the  pope.  When  it  was  a  question  of 
taxing  the  baronies  of  the  clergy,  the  lay  barons  came  to  their  aid 
and  encouraged  the  prelates  to  refuse. 

377  The  tenths  for  five  years  for  the  Sicilian  affair,  a  tenth  in  1264, 
a  tenth  for  three  years  in  1266,  a  twentieth  in  1268.  All  military 
tenants  paid  aids  in  1245  and  1253,  but  these  were  owed  and  so  are 
not  exceptions  to  the  statement  in  the  text. 

381 


STUDIES  IN  TAXATION 

formed  a  definite  part  of  the  great  council  and  responded 
separately  for  their  taxes. 

Of  a  division  between  the  greater  and  lesser  lay  tenants, 
there  is  evidence  in  the  different  form  of  summons  in 
Magna  Carta.  The  refusal  of  the  great  men  to  reply 
for  the  lesser  tenants  in  1254378  indicates  the  same.  Other 
than  these  cases,  there  is  little  proof  of  such  a  division 
under  Henry  HI.879 

In  what  sense  is  it  true  that  the  great  council  of  tenants 
in  chief  represented  those  who  were  neither  present  nor 
summoned?  To  what  extent  did  it  act  as  a  unit?  Was 
the  council  regarded  as  the  universitas  Anglias,  the  reg- 
num,  in  taxation?  In  the  earliest  taxes,  the  tenant  repre- 
sented all  the  men  on  his  land  and  granted  the  king  a  tax 
on  them.38c  This  view  of  the  matter  apparently  came 
from  the  feudal  system,  for  the  French  kings  levied  taxes 
in  the  same  way.38]  In  theory,  such  a  procedure  was 
impossible;  the  tenant  in  chief  had  no  right  to  take  such 
a  tax  from  his  men  without  their  consent.  How  then 
could  he  grant  the  king  the  right  to  tax  them?  The 
solution  is  not  to  be  found  by  stating  that  the  tenant  put 
the  king  in  his  place  and  allowed  him  to  ask  the  sub- 
tenants for  an  aid.  There  is  no  evidence  that  the  king 

378  See  above,  p.  261. 

379  If  one  thinks  that  the  introduction  of  representatives  was  due 
to  the  fact  that  the  lesser  tenants  had  ceased  to  attend  the  great 
council,   then   that   fact   should   be   mentioned.     To   the   writer,    the 
introduction  of  representatives  has  no  direct  bearing  on  the  normal 
attendance  of  the  lesser  tenants  who  had  formerly  been  accustomed 
to  attend,  but  is  to  be  connected  with  the  tenants  who  ought  to  have 
held   by   military   service,    and   who   never   had    attended    the    great 
council  (see  above,  p.  378). 

sso  In  1207,  the  consent  of  the  tenants  was  individual;  thus  each 
must  have  made  the  grant  to  the  king  for  his  own  men  and  hence 
each  represented  his  men.  Cf.  the  grant  of  the  carucage  in  1224  (see 
above,  p.  156);  see  also  the  letter  of  the  king  to  the  abbot  of 
Coggeshal,  above,  p.  201,  note  109. 

ssiVuitry,  II,  144^. 

382 


UNDER  JOHN  AND  HENRY  III 

took  any  consent  but  that  of  the  barons;  when  this  had 
been  obtained,  the  writs  of  assessment  were  issued.385  The 
explanation  seems  to  be  that  the  barons  did  not  conform 
strictly  to  the  law,  but  followed  one  of  their  common 
practices  in  a  modified  form.  With  the  king's  permission, 
when  in  financial  need,  they  constantly  applied  to  their 
vassals  for  auxilia.3S£  Legally  the  vassals  could  not  be 
forced  to  pay  such  aids ;  they  were  aids  of  grace.  At  the 
same  time,  as  feudal  tenants,  they  were  under  obligation 
to  come  to  their  lord's  assistance  when  necessary,  and 
partly  for  this  reason,  no  doubt,  the  requests  of  the  ten- 
ants in  chief  for  aid  were  commonly  granted.  Such  an 
occasion  for  seeking  an  aid  from  their  men  arose  when 
the  barons  granted  an  auxilium  to  their  lord,  the  king. 
Instead  however  of  raising  the  money  by  asking  their 
vassals  for  a  gracious  aid384  with  the  help  of  royal  literae 
deprecatoriae,  the  tenants  in  chief  modified  the  procedure 
by  allowing  the  government  to  collect  the  aid  directly 
from  the  sub-tenants.385  In  so  doing,  they  changed  the 
character  of  the  levy.  From  being  a  voluntary  grant  by 
the  barons'  men  to  their  lords,  it  became  a  compulsory 
payment,  enforced  by  all  the  power  of  the  king.  Yet  as 
the  aid,  in  any  case,  would  fall  back  in  part  on  the  sub- 

382  Plehn,  p.  16. 

sss  See  above,  pp.  346,  347. 

38*  In  1207,  however,  many  of  the  prelates  paid  lump  sums  for 
their  aid  to  the  king;  to  pay  the  money  they  asked  their  tenants  for 
an  aid  (see  above,  pp.  88,  89,  notes  8,  21,  for  the  abbot  of  Abingdon 
and  the  bishop  of  Durham);  for  two  cases  in  other  years  when  the 
tenant  promised  the  king  an  aid  and  to  pay  it  asked  his  vassals  for 
an  aid,  see  above,  p.  347,  notes  225,  226. 

385  Many  times  when  property  was  assessed,  the  work  of  assessment 
and  collection  was  in  the  hands  of  the  tenants;  nearly  all  the  cases 
in  which  this  was  done  relate  to  the  clergy.  Aids  on  the  property 
of  laymen  were  regularly  assessed  by  the  royal  officials;  the  rights 
of  the  tenants  in  chief  were  protected  in  different  ways  (see  above, 
pp.  205,  217). 

383 


STUDIES  IN  TAXATION 

tenant,  the  change  may  well  have  seemed  mainly  one  of 
form. 

After  1215,  the  view  that  each  baron  represented  all 
his  men  began  to  be  supplemented  by  a  feeling  that  the 
council  of  lay  and  clerical  tenants  in  chief  represented 
property  holders  who  were  not  in  attendance.  This 
development  was  due  to  the  increased  frequency  of  taxes, 
to  the  fact  that  they  were  granted  in  one  great  council, 
and  that  they  were  paid,  not  only  by  all  the  men  on  the 
lands  of  tenants  in  chief  present,  but  also  by  laymen,  who 
were  not  rear-vassals ;  some  of  these  laymen  had  been 
summoned,  but  were  not  present,  and  others  had  not  been 
summoned.386  If  such  men  were  represented  at  all,  they 
were  represented  by  the  council  as  a  whole.381  It  is  not 
probable  that  the  powers  of  the  council  were  clearly 
defined  in  the  minds  of  either  the  king  or  the  magnates. 
Yet  the  language  of  the  writs  of  assessment  shows  that 
this  question  was  considered.  There  was  a  steady  advance 
in  the  belief  that  the  council  as  a  body  represented  men 
who  did  not  attend  it  and  in  the  effort  to  express  the 
limits  of  this  representation  completely  and  precisely.  In 
1207,  the  writ  states  merely  that  the  aid  was  provided 
and  granted  by  the  common  advice  and  assent  of  the 
council.888  In  1220,  all  the  magnates  and  faithful  of  the 
realm  granted  the  carucage.388  In  1225,  the  fifteenth  was 
granted  by  the  archbishops,  bishops,  abbots,  priors,  earls, 
barons,  knights,  free  tenants,  and  all  in  the  kingdom.390 

ass  These  laymen  who  had  not  been  summoned  would  be  men  on 
the  royal  demesne  and  probably  some  minor  tenants  in  chief. 

387  Cf.  Plehn,  p.  16. 

sss  "per  commune  consilium  et  assensum  concilii  nostri  .  .  .  pro- 
visum  est  .  .  .  (et)  concessum  est"  (Rot.  Litt.  Pat.,  p.  72b). 

389  "concesserunt  nobis  sui  gratia  communiter  omnes  magnates  et 
fideles  tocius  regni  nostri"  (Rot.  Litt.  Claus.,  I,  437a). 

390  "archiepiscopi,    episcopi,    abbates,    priores,    comites,    barones, 
milites,  libere  tenentes  et  omnes  de  regno  nostro"   (Select  Charters, 
p.  354). 

384 


UNDER  JOHN  AND  HENRY  III 

The  fortieth  was  granted  by  the  archbishops,  bishops, 
abbots,  priors,  and  clergy  having  lands  which  did  not 
belong  to  their  churches,  earls,  barons,  knights,  freemen, 
and  villeins  of  the  kingdom.391  The  aid  on  knights'  fees 
of  1235  was  granted  by  the  archbishops,  bishops,  abbots, 
priors,  earls,  barons,  and  all  others  of  the  realm  of  Eng- 
land who  held  of  the  king  in  chief.382  The  thirtieth  in 
1237  was  granted  by  the  archbishops,  bishops,  abbots, 
priors,  and  clergy  having  lands  which  did  not  belong  to 
their  churches,  earls,  barons,  knights,  and  freemen  for 
themselves  and  their  villeins.393  In  theory,  then,  every 
taxpayer  was  represented  in  the  council  or  was  present. 

In  practice,  also,  there  was  much  corporate  activity  by 
the  council.  The  meetings  in  which  taxes  were  considered 
were  characterized  frequently  by  animated  discussion, 
especially  in  the  latter  part  of  the  period.394  This  was 
a  sign  of  corporate  feeling  and  a  cause  of  its  growth. 
Taxes  were  granted  as  a  result  of  a  bargain  between  the 
king  and  the  magnates. 39J  Taxes  were  at  first  postponed 
and  finally  refused  altogether.39*  The  council  was 
described  in  terms  which  imply  a  unified  body,  as  barna- 

39i  Select  Charters,  p.  360;  "archiepiscopi,  episcopi,  abbates,  priores, 
et  clerici  terras  habentes  quae  ad  ecclesias  suas  non  pertinent,  comites, 
barones,  milites,  liberi  homines  et  villani  de  regno  nostro"  (Close 
Rolls,  II,  155). 

302  "archiepiscopi,  episcopi,  abbates,  priores,  comites,  barones  et 
omnes  alii  de  regno  nostro  Anglic  qui  de  nobis  tenent  in  capite" 
(Close  Rolls,  III,  186). 

393  The  same  classes  as  in  note  391,  except  at  the  end  "et  liberi 
homines  pro  se  et  suis  villanis"  (Close  Rolls,  III,  544). 

394  See  above,  pp.  160,  177,  200,  215,  224,  241,  249,  253  ff. 

395  in    1225,   the   king   confirmed    the   charter   and    was   in   return 
granted  the  fifteenth;  also  in  1237  (see  above,  pp.  160,  215). 

396  in  1231,  the  aid  of  the  clergy  was  made  after  it  had  been  first 
denied;  in  1232,  there  was  a  postponed  meeting  to  grant  the  aid;  in 
1242  and  in  1245,  the  king  was  unable  to  get  the  kind  of  an  aid 
which  he  had  wanted;  in  1252,  the  grant  of  the  aid  was  postponed. 
There  were  numerous  refusals  of  aid  after  1245. 

385 


STUDIES  IN  TAXATION 

gium,  universitas,  communitas,  regnum.  The  king's 
efforts,  which  were  often  unsuccessful,  to  get  a  contribu- 
tion by  appealing  to  tenants  individually  imply  unity  of 
action  by  the  tenants.397  In  general  it  was  the  growth  of 
this  corporate  feeling  which  made  it  possible  to  resist 
successfully  the  king's  demands  for  taxes. 

At  the  same  time  certain  qualifications  must  be  intro- 
duced to  show  that  the  corporate  activity  of  the  great 
council  and  the  representative  character  of  the  great 
council  were  imperfect.  The  previous  practice  had  been 
to  make  aids  by  bargain  between  the  king  and  the  vassal. 
That  this  theory  of  individual  consent  should  die  out  at 
once  is  hardly  possible.  The  fact  that  the  taxes  were 
uniform  in  rate  in  great  part  gives  them  the  appearance 
of  being  the  result  of  corporate  action,  more  than  was 
perhaps  actually  the  case.398  The  great  barons  would 
attend  the  council  and  there  give  their  consent.  Natur- 
ally therefore  they  would  be  the  ones  who  could  make 
most  effective  opposition.  A  small  tenant  who  opposed, 
and  there  were  such,  could  easily  be  distrained  by  the 
royal  officials,  fortified  by  the  support  of  the  magnates.395 
The  persistence  of  the  practice  of  individual  consent  is 
shown  by  cases  scattered  through  the  reign.  In  1217, 
the  bishop  of  Winchester  protested  that  he  had  never 
consented  to  the  aid  of  that  year  and  he  was  excused 
payment  by  the  king's  council.400  In  1220,  the  tenants 
of  Yorkshire  refused  to  pay  the  carucage,  because  they 
had  not  been  summoned  to  the  council  which  granted  it.403 

397  See  above,  pp.  224,  249,  263,  269,  373,  note  329. 

398  The  thirteenth  of  1207  and  the  aid  of  1222  were  at  a  uniform 
rate,  yet  there  seems  to  have  been  no  corporate  action;  if  there  was 
corporate  action  in  the  grant  of  the  carucages  of  1220  and  1224,  it 
did  not  bind  absentees  (see  above,  pp.  87,  131,  141,  157). 

399  See  above,  pp.  166,  205,  217,  note  186. 

400  See  above,  p.  127. 

401  Shirley,  I,  151. 

386 


UNDER  JOHN  AND  HENRY  III 

Some  great  men  in  other  counties  refused  to  allow  dis- 
traint to  be  made  on  their  lands  for  that  carucage,  and 
the  royal  officials  seem  to  have  been  powerless.402  The  poll 
tax  of  1222  was  by  individual  consent.403  The  special 
carucage  of  the  clergy  in  1224  bound  only  those  prelates 
who  agreed  to  it.404  In  1225,  the  bishop  of  Durham 
received  the  king's  writ  stating  that  the  fifteenth  had 
been  granted  "ex  mero  liberalitatis  vestrae  dono."4  In 
connection  with  the  discussion  over  the  sixteenth  of  1226, 
the  church  of  Salisbury  asked  the  question  what  was  to 
be  done  if  some  canons  refused  to  grant  the  sum  to  which 
the  majority  of  the  chapter  agreed.406  In  1232,  the 
clergy,  on  the  ground  that  many  were  absent,  asked  for 
and  were  granted  a  delay  in  order  to  consider  the  king's 
request  for  an  aid.401  The  earl  of  Albemarle,  the  earl 
of  Lincoln,  and  Richard  de  Percy  refused  to  allow  the 
fortieth  to  be  collected  on  their  property  up  to  March  12, 
1235,  and  not  till  1236  was  it  collected  from  Richard 
"who  then  prevented  it,  but  now  has  granted  that  it  shall 
be  collected."4  A  notice  concerning  the  aid  of  1235  due 
from  the  fee  of  a  certain  tenant  takes  the  form  of  indi- 
vidual consent.405  In  1237,  the  words  of  Matthew  Paris 
in  describing  the  conditions  under  which  the  grant  was 
made  imply  individual  consent.41'  In  1257,  the  grant  of 
£52,000  was  made  by  a  council  in  which  absentees  were 
represented  on  condition  that  the  absent  prelates  should 

402  See  above,  p.  132. 

403  See  above,  p.  141. 
<04  See  above,  p.  156. 

405  R0t.  Lift.  Glaus.,  II,  75. 

406  See  above,  p.  170. 

407  Wend.,  IV,  233. 

408  Cal.  Pat.  Rolls,  I,  124,  159. 

409  See  above,  p.  209,  note  149. 

410  "Consentientibus  igitur  primum  archiepiscopo  Cantuariensi  cum 
suis  episcopis  et  clero";  "saepe  tamen  annexum  fuit  in  conditione" 
(Matthew  Paris,  III,  383). 

387 


STUDIES  IN  TAXATION 

give  their  consent  to  it.411  In  1270,  the  bishops  granted 
a  twentieth  on  their  demesnes,  but  bound  only  those  prel- 
ates who  were  present.412  It  is  evident  that  the  definite 
establishment  of  the  principle,  that  the  consent  of  those 
present  to  a  tax  binds  the  absentees,  does  not  take  place 
in  Henry  Ill's  reign,  and  that  the  members  of  the  great 
council  consciously  recognize  this  fact. 

If  there  is  thus  doubt  about  the  corporate  activity  of 
the  great  council,  we  cannot  state  definitely  that  the 
council  as  a  whole  represented  the  kingdom.  There  were 
some  classes  over  whom  its  authority  did  not  extend.  One 
of  these  classes  was  the  beneficed  clergy.  In  1207,  the 
grant  of  the  thirteenth  did  not  extend  to  them.413  In 
1225,  the  churches  made  a  separate  grant,  and  in  1232 
and  1237  no  grant  at  all.414  In  1240,  the  papal  legate 
dealt  with  the  rectors  of  Berkshire  concerning  taxation 
for  the  pope.415  In  1247,  the  council  held  to  consider 
another  papal  aid  contained  the  archdeacons.416  In  1253, 
the  tenth  seems  to  have  been  granted  by  the  prelates  with- 
out consulting  the  lower  clergy,  who  however  later  com- 
plained of  it.411  Perhaps  as  a  result  of  this  feeling,  the 
prelates  in  1254  refused  to  answer  for  the  lower  clergy 
concerning  an  aid.418  In  1256  and  1257,  the  tenths  were 
discussed  by  the  lower  as  well  as  the  higher  clergy.418 
In  the  grants  of  aid  in  1264,  1266,  and  1268  only  the 

411  "ac  praelati  absentes  oblationem  praedictam  duxerint  acceptan- 
dam"  (Burton,  p.  402). 

412  "Nos    episcopi,    qui    praesentes    sumus,    quantum   in   nobis    est, 
parati  sumus  gratanter  subvenire  de  vicesima  terrarum  nostrarum  et 
tenementorum  feudalium,  quae  tenemus  in  dominico"  (Wilkins,  II,  21). 

«3  See  above,  p.  88. 

414  See  above,  pp.  169,  201,  216. 

415  See  above,  p.  264. 
4ie  See  above,  p.  267. 

417  See  above,  p.  277. 

418  See  above,  p.  262. 

419  See  above,  pp.  277,  278. 


UNDER  JOHN  AND  HENRY  III 

higher  clergy  seem  to  have  been  consulted  ;420  the  twentieth 
of  1270  was  discussed  by  the  lower  clergy.421 

Another  class  regarding  whom  the  same  question  may 
be  raised  was  the  religious  orders  which  did  not  hold  by 
military  tenure.  When  the  king  received  a  grant  of  a 
tax  on  personal  property  from  the  great  council,  he 
demanded  it  from  all  sorts  of  religious  houses.  In  order 
to  escape  paying  any  tax  at  all,  to  avoid  the  assessment 
of  their  property,  or  to  be  allowed  to  fine,  these  houses 
had  to  get  a  special  writ  from  the  king.  When  they  fined, 
their  fine  was  called  a  fine  for  the  fifteenth.422  Thus  the 
presumption  was  that  they  owed  the  tax.  This  looks 
very  much  as  though  the  king  felt  that  the  grant  in  the 
great  council  empowered  him  to  collect  from  them 
although  they  were  not  members  of  the  council.  If  how- 
ever we  remember  that  it  was  customary  to  collect  dona 
from  religious  houses  when  scutage  was  levied,  or  even 
when  no  scutage  was  taken  (1248),  it  will  seem  probable 
that  the  king  was  following  this  custom  in  connection 
with  the  aids  on  personal  property,  rather  than  levying 
a  tax  by  the  authority  of  the  great  council.  Nevertheless, 
a  change  had  been  brought  about  in  the  relation  of  these 
religious  bodies  toward  taxation  which  was  due  to  the 
fact  that  taxes  were  levied  on  property.  In  the  case  of 
the  ordinary  dona,  no  house  would  be  liable  unless  it  were 
approached  by  officials  specially  appointed  to  ask  for  a 
contribution;  in  the  case  of  the  dona  taken  in  connection 
with  the  aids  on  moveables,  the  mere  fact  that  a  house 
possessed  property  rendered  it  liable  to  assessment  by 
the  ordinary  assessors  of  the  county. 

The  other  class  which  was  not  represented  in  the  great 
council  was  the  tenants  on  the  royal  demesne.  They  paid 

420  See  above,  pp.  290,  292,  294. 

421  See  above,  p.  297. 

422  See  above,  p.  163. 

389 


STUDIES  IN  TAXATION 

the  taxes  on  personal  property  in  1225  and  1232.  In 
1237,  part,  perhaps  all,  of  the  demesne  paid  a  tallage.423 
In  1270,  the  towns  on  the  demesne  again  paid  a  tallage 
instead  of  the  twentieth  on  the  assessed  value  of  their 
property.424  Henry  III  levied  tallages  during  his  entire 
reign,  independently  of  any  grant  by  the  great  council, 
but  a  tallage  was  not  based  on  property.  He  never  levied 
a  tax  on  the  property  of  the  demesne  except  when  he  had 
received  a  grant  from  the  great  council.  This  suggests 
that  the  council  represented  the  demesne.  But  when  the 
towns  paid  a  tallage  instead  of  a  twentieth  or  a  thirtieth, 
they  paid  the  old  customary  levy  which  they  owed  to  the 
king  and  over  which  the  council  had  no  control.  Such 
a  payment  had  the  effect  of  denying  the  authority  of 
the  council  to  tax  them.  Therefore  at  the  close  of  Henry's 
reign,  the  council  cannot  be  regarded  as  the  representative 
of  the  towns. 

Certain  other  influences  operated  to  prevent  the  forma- 
tion of  the  great  council  into  a  unified  body  which  repre- 
sented the  whole  kingdom.  The  great  growth  of  corporate 
feeling  was  after  1237.  As  this  feeling  grew,  there  was 
a  tendency  for  the  council  to  split  into  groups,  each  of 
which  should  have  charge  of  its  own  taxes.425  The  result 

«3  See  above,  pp.  162,  201,  216. 

«4  See  above,  p.  297. 

425  in  1229,  the  bishops  paid  an  aid  while  the  lay  tenants  and  the 
religious  houses  which  held  by  military  tenure  paid  fines  and  scu- 
tages;  in  1231,  the  laity  paid  scutage  while  all  the  clergy  paid  an 
aid.  In  1237,  the  clergy  were  allowed  to  assess  and  collect  the 
thirtieth  themselves.  In  1242,  the  laity  and  the  religious  houses  paid 
fines  and  scutages  and  the  bishops  paid  aid.  In  1244,  groups  appear 
in  the  council  (see  above,  p.  381).  In  1252,  the  laity  stated  that  their 
reply  to  the  king  for  an  aid  depended  on  the  reply  of  the  clergy 
(see  above,  ibid.).  In  1253,  the  clergy  granted  a  tenth  on  their 
property  other  than  their  baronies.  In  1254,  the  great  barons  refused 
to  reply  for  the  other  laity.  In  1255,  tiie  clergy  refused  the  grant 
of  the  tenth  on  their  baronies.  There  are  taxes  on  the  clergy  only 
in  1264,  1266,  and  1268.  In  1269,  the  tenants  in  chief  granted  the 

390 


UNDER  JOHN  AND  HENRY  III 

would  be  to  restrict  rather  than  to  broaden  the  repre- 
sentative character  of  the  assembly.  By  whom  would  the 
unrepresented  elements  be  taxed?  That  was  a  matter 
which  could  be  settled  only  by  precedent.  But  the  action 
of  the  council  after  1237  as  to  taxes  on  laymen  was 
negative.  The  tenants  refused  to  grant  aids.  General 
taxes  on  laymen,  except  those  legally  due,  ceased  for  over 
a  generation  (from  1237  till  1269).426  The  principle  was 
thus  established  that  the  king  could  not  tax  without  the 
consent  of  the  tenants  in  chief.  But  the  precedents  by 
which  that  principle  was  fixed  by  no  means  established 
the  principle  that  the  tenants  in  chief  were  competent 
to  grant  taxes  on  property  other  than  their  own.  That 
was  left  for  another  generation  to  work  out. 

Another  question  arises:  When  the  great  council,  or  a 
group  in  it,  refused  a  tax,  was  the  king  able  to  exact  the 
tax  from  another  group  or  from  individual  members?  Up 
to  1242,  there  is  no  evidence  that  an  effort  was  made  to 
obtain  money  from  individuals  when  the  group  had  refused 
it.  In  1231,  though  scutage  was  being  collected  from 
lay  tenants,  nothing  was  demanded  from  clerical  tenants 
till  the  grant  of  aid  was  made  by  them.427  After  1242, 
demands  were  made  on  individuals  for  aid.  But  the 
frequent  refusals  and  the  recourse  of  the  king  to  money 
lenders  show  how  insufficient  were  the  sums  which  could 
be  raised  if  there  was  not  a  grant  by  the  council.428  The 
magnates  were  continually  summoned  and  asked  for  aid. 
The  lay  tenants  were  especially  successful  in  escaping 

twentieth  on  their  baronies,  then  the  bishops  on  their  demesnes,  then 
the  religious  houses,  probably  on  property  other  than  lands  held  by 
military  tenure;  the  towns  also  paid  a  tallage  (see  above,  p.  296/.). 

426  The  only  taxes  levied  were  the  scutages  and  the  aids  of  1245 
and  1253,  to  marry  the  king's  daughter  and  to  knight  the  king's 
eldest  son. 

427  See  above,  p.  192. 

428  See  above,  p.  241  ff. 

391 


STUDIES  IN  TAXATION 

taxation.     In  1258  they  did  not  complain  of  excessive 
taxes ;  it  was  the  clergy  and  the  towns  that  had  suffered.429 

CONCLUSION 

As  between  the  king  and  the  tenants  in  chief,  the  scutage 
therefore  never  became  a  general  tax;  it  remained  the 
composition  for  military  service.  It  was  however  often 
accompanied  or  replaced  by  a  fine.  Military  service  was 
essentially  changed.  The  old  servitium  debitum  disap- 
peared, and  a  new  servitium  debitum  took  its  place.  In 
the  case  of  the  greater  tenants,  the  new  service  was 
usually  only  a  fraction  of  the  old  service;  in  the  case  of 
the  lesser  tenants,  it  was  often,  probably  generally,  com- 
muted into  money.  The  scutage  or  fine  was  the  composi- 
tion for  this  reduced  service;  the  scutage  was  computed 
at  a  customary  rate  and  the  fine  was  taken  at  a  lump 
sum  which  was  restricted  in  amount  by  custom.  The 
number  of  fees  for  which  a  tenant  was  held  to  respond 
at  the  exchequer  had  also  become  fixed  at  a  number 
representing  either  the  old  servitium  debitum  or  the  old 
enfeoffment  of  the  time  of  Henry  II.  Attempts  to 
increase  the  rate  and  the  number  of  fees  failed.  The 
scutage  however  did  not  stop  with  the  tenant  in  chief; 
it  was  shifted  from  one  grade  to  another  of  holders  of 
land.  The  decline  in  the  amount  of  military  service  which 
tenants  in  chief  furnished  the  king  means  that  the  great 
majority  of  rear- vassals  ceased  to  serve  in  the  field,  but 
performed  their  service  by  paying  scutage.  Each  military 
expedition  for  which  scutage  was  levied  became  therefore 
the  occasion  for  a  tax  on  all  land  held  by  military  service. 
Thus  the  scope  of  the  scutage  as  a  tax  is  far  wider  than 
is  represented  by  what  the  king  received  or  what  the  Pipe 
Rolls  record.  As  between  the  king  and  his  vassals,  the 

420  Select  Charters,  pp.  394,  395. 

392 


UNDER  JOHN  AND  HENRY  III 

scutage  continued  to  be  the  composition  for  service,  levied 
only  on  part  of  the  fees ;  as  between  tenants  of  different 
grades,  it  was  a  tax  on  all  the  fees.  The  opposition  of 
tenants  in  chief  to  John's  scutages  was  probably  in  part 
the  result  of  the  opposition  of  the  sub-tenants  to  the 
greater  frequency  of  the  levy  and  the  increase  in  the  rate. 
The  same  method  of  collection  persisted  throughout  the 
period.  The  sheriff  usually  supervised  the  collection, 
though  twice  special  officers  were  appointed.  Tenants 
who  served  retained  the  scutage  from  their  lands  for  their 
own  use.  Other  tenants  were  allowed  to  collect  from  their 
vassals  and  to  respond  either  to  the  sheriff  or  directly 
to  the  exchequer.  The  sheriff  was  constantly  brought 
into  direct  relations  with  the  sub-tenants.  He  distrained 
them  to  pay  scutage  to  their  lords ;  if  the  latter  refused 
to  pay,  he  distrained  both  lord  and  vassal.  If  the  lord 
had  no  writ  to  collect  his  scutage,  the  royal  officer  col- 
lected it  from  the  rear- vassals.  But  in  general,  the  scu- 
tage was  not  paid  by  the  rear-vassals  to  the  sheriff  for 
the  exchequer. 

The  abuses  of  scutage  under  John  were  twofold:  the 
increase  in  the  amount  of  composition  and  its  levy  on 
improper  occasions.  These  abuses  brought  about  an 
attempt  to  regulate  them  in  Magna  Carta  of  1215.  The 
provision  there  made  covered  all  kinds  of  extraordinary 
levies  on  tenants  in  chief,  aids  as  well  as  scutages.  It 
was  dropped  chiefly  because  it  changed  scutage  into  an 
aid,  but  the  abuses  remained  reformed  under  Henry  III. 

The  tallage  retained  its  original  character.  It  was 
levied  from  time  to  time  independently  of  other  levies. 
Towns,  vills,  and  individuals  paid  lump  sums  assessed  by 
royal  officers,  usually  judges,  who  were  generally  assisted 
in  this  work  by  the  sheriff.  It  was  paid  either  to  these 
assessors,  or  to  the  sheriff,  or  directly  to  the  exchequer. 

393 


STUDIES  IN  TAXATION 

The  amounts  charged  varied  within  limits.  There  was 
no  assessment  of  property. 

The  dona  from  religious  houses  remained  the  same, 
lump  sums,  not  based  on  property,  assessed  and  collected 
in  about  the  same  way  as  the  tallage.  They  were  always 
taken,  up  to  1248,  in  connection  with  a  levy  on  tenants  in 
chief,  but  in  that  year  one  was  taken  although  the  military 
tenants  paid  nothing.  The  king  therefore  was  establish- 
ing the  right  to  take  this  voluntary  levy  independently 
of  other  taxes. 

These  three  levies,  the  scutage,  the  tallage,  and  the 
donum,  therefore  became  stereotyped.  It  was  clearly 
understood  when  and  how  they  were  to  be  taken.  The 
amount  which  could  be  demanded,  even  in  the  case  of  the 
fines,  was  practically  fixed.  Henceforth  it  would  tend  to 
diminish  rather  than  increase.  The  development  of  a 
system  of  taxes  along  this  line  had  stopped.  The  further 
growth  of  taxation  was  connected  with  these  levies  only 
in  an  indirect  way,  viz.,  through  the  king's  power  to 
obtain  service  in  money  by  means  of  them. 

The  necessity  of  the  government  for  a  larger  income 
led  to  modern  taxation.  Its  origin  was  the  voluntary 
feudal  aid,  a  levy  never  taken  by  the  king  on  a  grand 
scale  before  Richard  I,  but  constantly  taken  by  the  barons. 
Thus  an  occasion  for  repeated  levies  was  found  in  the 
financial  necessities  of  the  feudal  lord,  in  this  case  the 
king.  But  of  greater  importance  was  the  form  which  the 
aid  assumed  in  the  carucage  and  the  tax  on  moveables. 
They  were  based  on  property.  New  machinery  of  assess- 
ment and  collection  was  devised,  representing  both  the 
central  government  and  the  locality.  Ultimately  all 
classes  in  the  community  were  brought  under  contribution 
on  the  assessed  value  of  their  property.  Along  with  this 
went  a  change  in  the  feeling  toward  these  extraordinary 
levies.  By  the  end  of  Henry  Ill's  reign,  it  was  admitted 

394 


UNDER  JOHN  AND  HENRY  III 

that  the  king  could  not  live  of  his  own,  but  that  from 
time  to  time  he  needed  an  aid  to  supplement  the  ordinary 
income  of  the  state.  All  this  meant  an  immense  increase 
of  the  royal  power. 

At  the  same  time,  an  effective  check  on  the  king's  taxing 
power  was  developed  through  the  growth  of  a  feeling  of 
unity  among  the  tenants  in  chief.  This  check  first 
appeared  under  John,  partly  caused  by  his  levy  of  scu- 
tage.  At  the  close  of  his  reign  the  barons  succeeded 
through  combination  in  placing  limits  to  the  king's  rights 
over  scutage.  The  great  development  of  corporate  feel- 
ing however  was  under  Henry  III.  The  strength  of  the 
combination  of  the  barons  made  the  king  observe  in  the 
main  the  regulation  laid  down  for  scutage.  It  was  not 
hard  for  the  tenants  to  combine  to  this  end,  for  they 
understood  clearly  what  they  desired.  If  the  king  had 
waged  a  proper  campaign,  he  should  have  scutage  from 
those  who  had  failed  to  serve;  he  might  also  have  a  fine 
on  occasion.  If  there  had  been  no  proper  campaign,  then 
no  scutage  was  due.  Rate  of  scutage  and  fines  should 
be  reasonable. 

It  was  less  easy  for  the  barons  to  arrive  at  a  satis- 
factory arrangement  of  the  aid.  They  would  hardly 
deny  the  truth  of  the  proposition  that,  if  a  lord  were  in 
financial  straits,  his  vassals  ought  to  come  to  his  assist- 
ance. Such  a  situation  however  should  occur  infrequently 
and  it  was  hard  to  know  what  to  do  with  a  king  like 
Henry  III  who  was  always  short  of  money.  Furthermore, 
the  aids  which  the  king  finally  came  to  ask  had  dangerous 
forms.  All  property  was  to  be  assessed  by  juries  under 
the  supervision  of  royal  officers,  and  a  certain  proportion 
of  the  value  was  to  be  paid.  This  payment  looks  very 
much  like  rent  (consuetudo).  If  the  requests  of  the  king 
were  always  granted,  he  would  develop  a  customary  right 
to  aids  corresponding  to  his  right  to  tallage.  Never- 

395 


STUDIES  IN  TAXATION 

theless,  resistance  was  difficult.  The  royal  demand  was 
based  on  feudal  custom  practised  by  the  barons  themselves 
and  the  king  was  very  strong.  Hence  arose  the  combi- 
nation of  the  barons  to  resist  the  royal  power  and  refuse 
to  grant  aids.  To  the  custom  that  the  lord  could  ask  aids 
of  his  vassals  when  he  was  in  great  need,  the  tenants 
opposed  the  principle  that  consent  to  the  aid  was  neces- 
sary. The  consent  was  however  in  origin  individual,  but 
by  the  union  of  the  barons  a  measure  of  corporate  consent 
was  developed. 

The  composition  of  the  great  council  was  ill-defined 
under  Henry  III.  In  theory  that  body  was  composed 
of  all  tenants  in  chief  by  military  service;  in  practice 
there  was  much  variation.  Probably  many  of  the  lesser 
tenants  ceased  to  attend  just  as  they  had  ceased  to  go 
to  war  with  the  host,  but  neither  in  fact  nor  in  theory 
was  the  council  composed  only  of  the  greater  tenants  in 
chief. 

The  authority  of  the  council  was  equally  ill-defined. 
In  the  early  part  of  the  reign  it  granted  several  taxes. 
These  were  levied  on  men  who  were  not  represented  in  it. 
Then  ensued  a  period  of  thirty-two  years  (1237-1269) 
in  which  the  council  refused  to  grant  aids,  and  the  refusal 
was  effective  as  far  as  the  property  on  land  held  by 
military  service  was  concerned.  The  principle  was  thus 
established  that  the  king  could  not  tax  his  military  ten- 
ants without  the  consent  of  the  great  council.  During 
this  period,  no  aids  were  levied  on  the  demesne.  It  may 
be  that  the  refusal  of  the  tenants  in  chief  was  partly 
responsible  for  this,  but  it  must  be  remembered  that  the 
aid  of  1237  was  not  levied  on  all  the  royal  demesne. 
Instead  the  king  took  a  tallage.  It  is  likely  therefore 
that  the  refusal  of  the  great  council  was  not  the  reason 
why  the  king  did  not  levy  aid  on  his  demesne  and  that 
refusal  did  not  operate  to  prevent  the  king  from  taxing 

396 


UNDER  JOHN  AND  HENRY  III 

the  property  of  the  clergy  which  was  not  held  by  military 
service.  The  corporate  activity  of  the  tenants  in  chief 
therefore  seems  to  have  applied  only  to  their  own  prop- 
erty. Nor  was  that  activity  complete,  for  the  idea  of 
individual  consent  persisted  throughout  Henry  Ill's 
reign.  The  council  tended  to  split  into  groups.  Thus 
though  the  king  could  not  tax  his  military  tenants  without 
their  consent  when  they  were  gathered  in  an  assembly, 
the  principle  was  not  yet  established  that  the  council 
could  tax  any  property  other  than  that  of  its  members. 
The  questions  of  the  final  composition  of  the  council  and 
the  definition  of  its  authority  were  left  for  a  later  age. 


397 


INDEX 

Aid:  distinct  from  scutage,  pp.  13,  314,  315; 
gracious,  pp.  346-349; 
kinds  of,  fixed  by  feudal  law,  p.  346; 
levies  included  under,  pp.  13,  314,  315,  348,  359; 
points  discussed  under  each,  pp.  13,  14; 
reasons  for  asking,  pp.  346-348;  see  each  aid. 
refusal  of;  by  the  clergy  to  the  king,  1207,  p.  87;  in  1217,  p.  123; 

by  lay  tenants  in  1220,  pp.  130-132;  by  lay  tenants  to  the 

pope,  1229,  p.  177;  to  the  king,  1232,  p.  200;  in  1242,  p.  224; 

in  1244,  p.  241;  in  1248,  1249,  p.  249;  in  1252,  pp.  253,  269; 

in   1254,  pp.  262,   271;   in   1255-1258,   pp.   274-278;   in   1266, 

p.  292;  in  general,  pp.  385,  386,  387. 
regulated  in  Magna  Carta,  pp.  359  ff. 
requests  for,  from  individuals;  by  the  pope,  1240,  p.  264;  1245- 

1247,  p.  267;  1252,  p.  269;  1262,  p.  290;  by  the  king:  1242, 

pp.  224,  225;  1248,  p.  249;  1252,  p.  269;  1254,  p.  263;  p.  373 

note  329;  in  general,  p.  374. 
Aids,  list  of:  see  aids  on  knights'  fees;  carucages;  personal  property, 

taxes  on;  dona, 
on  knights'  fees:  list  of:  pp.  348-350;  in  1217,  p.  125;  1229,  on 

bishops,  p.  189;  1231,  on  clergy,  p.  192;  1235,  p.  208;  1242, 

on  bishops,  p.  236;  1245,  p.  241;  1253,  p.  253. 
amount  yielded,  p.  354; 

assessment  and  collection,  in  general,  p.  350;  see  also  each  aid. 
authority  for  the  levy  of:  in  1217,  p.  125;  1229,  p.  189;  1231,  p. 

192;  1235,  p.  209;  1242,  p.  236;  1245,  p.  242;  1253,  pp.  253, 

254. 

exemption  from,  in  1217,  pp.  127,  128. 
Army,  composition  of,  pp.  304-306,  and  see  each  scutage. 
Assessment  and  collection  of  taxes:  aids  on  knights'  fees,  p.  350; 

carucage    and    taxes    on    personal    property,    pp.    352-353; 

scutage,  pp.  335-337;  tallage,  pp.  342-343;  and  see  each  tax. 
Auxilium;  see  aid. 

Bedford,  scutage  of,  p.  148;  carucage  of,  p.  148. 
Beneficed    clergy:    not    represented    by    the    great   council,    p.    388; 

taxation   of,  by  the  king,   pp.   14,   355-356,   and   see  list   of 

taxes  on  personal  property;  taxation  of,  by  the  pope,  p.  356. 
exempt  from  aids  on  personal  property  granted  by  the  great 

council,  p.  388. 

899 


INDEX 

Biham,  scutage  of,  p.  136. 

Bishops:  paid  aid  in  1229,  p.  189;  in  1242,  p.  236;  seldom  paid  fines 
for  knights'  service:  in  1201,  p.  40;  in  1203,  p.  57;  in  1204, 
p.  66;  1206,  p.  79. 

Burgh,  Hubert  de,  marches  into  Wales,  1223,  p.  143;  asks  for  a 
fifteenth,  1225,  p.  160;  his  account  of  the  fifteenth,  p.  16T 
note;  opposes  the  expedition  of  1230,  p.  181. 

Campaigns,  cost  of,  pp.  159,  343-344; 

length  of:  in  1199,  p.  21;  1201,  pp.  34,  35;  1206,  p.  77;  1210,  p. 
96;  1211,  p.  101;  1214,  p.  109;  1221,  p.  137;  1223,  pp.  143- 
144;  1224,  p.  149;  1228,  p.  173;  1230,  p.  181;  1231,  p.  196; 
1245,  p.  244;  1257,  p.  284  note;  in  general,  pp.  310-311. 

Carucage:  amount  yielded,  p.  354;  assessment  and  collection,  p.  352; 
change  in  the  character  of  taxation  in  the,  p.  351;  compo- 
sition for,  p.  353;  incidence  of,  pp.  351,  353;  inquests  into 
the,  in  1198,  p.  8;  number  of  men  paying  the,  p.  353; 
opposition  to  the,  in  1198,  p.  7;  in  1200,  p.  34;  in  1217,  p.  123; 
in  1220,  p.  130. 

Carucages,  list  of:  in  1194,  p.  7;  1198,  p.  7;  1200,  p.  32;  1217,  p.  121; 
1220,  p.  129;  1224,  on  clergy,  p.  148. 

Channel  Isles,  aid  on  the,  in  1201,  p.  45;  fifth  on  the,  1203,  p.  63. 

Chester,  earl  of,  opposes  the  tenth  df  1229,  p.  177;  opposes  the 
fortieth,  1232,  p.  193. 

Commune  consilium  regni,  meaning  of,  p.  369. 

Composition  for  taxes:  see  carucages;  personal  property,  taxes  on. 

Confirmation  of  charters,  1227,  p.  173. 

Consent  to  taxation:  see  individual  consent;  great  council,  corporate 
action  of. 

County  farm,  amount  of,  p.  15. 

Demesne,  royal:  not  represented  by  the  great  council,  p.  389;  pays 
the  thirteenth,  1207,  p.  89;  pays  the  carucage,  1220,  p.  134; 
the  fifteenth,  1225,  p.  162;  the  fortieth,  1232,  p.  201;  partly 
exempt  from  the  thirtieth,  1237,  pp.  216,  219;  and  from 
the  twentieth,  1269,  p.  297. 

Disinherited,  twentieth  paid  by  the  clergy  for  the,  1268,  p.  294. 

Disseizin:  for  fine:  in  1205,  p.  74;  1210,  pp.  99-100;  in  general,  p.  336. 
for  knights'   service:  in   1203,  p.   62;   1209,  p.   96;   1210,  p.   99; 

1223,  p.  145;  in  general,  pp.  306-307. 
for  scutage:  1204,  p.  67;  1210,  p.  99;   1228,  p.  175;  in  general, 

p.  319. 
for  tax  on  personal  property:  in  1207,  p.  90. 

Distraint:  for  fines  for  military  service:  in  1199,  p.  31;  in  general, 

p.  336. 
for  aids:  in  1217,  p.  128;  1225,  p.  166;  of  clergy,  1231,  p.  195; 

400 


INDEX 

1232,  p.  205;  1235,  p.  210;  1237,  p.  217  note;  1245,  p.  243; 
1253,  pp.  258-259;  in  general,  p.  386. 
for  knights'  service:  1210,  p.  99;  1242,  pp.  225,  226;  1244,  p.  240; 

1245,  p.  245  note;  1253,  pp.  254,  255;  in  general,  p.  307. 
for  scutage:  in  1199,  p.  31;  1205,  p.  76;  1221,  p.  140;  1223,  p. 
147;  1224,  p.  152;  1228,  pp.  175,  176;  1229,  p.  188  note;  1230, 
pp.  194,  195;  1231,  p.  198;  1242,  p.  235;  1245,  pp.  246-248; 
in  general,  pp.  319-320,  330,  335-338. 
Dona  from  religious  houses:  in  general,  pp.  9,  343,  350. 

assessment  and  collection,  see  references  in  the  list  below, 
list  of:  in  1199,  p.  32;  1203,  p.  61;  1204,  p.  68;  1205,  p.  70;  1206, 
p.  77  note;  1210,  p.  105;  1217,  p.  121;  1220,  p.  135;  1230,  p. 
190;  1235,  p.  212;  1242,  pp.  225,  237-238;  1245,  p.  244;  1249- 
1250,  pp.  249-250;   1253,  p.  255-256;   1254,  p.  263;   1255,  p. 
275;  1264,  p.  290. 
Eightieth  of  1250,  p.  268. 
Elveyn,  scutage  of,  p.  195. 
Falkes  de  Br6aut6,  rebellion  of,  p.  148. 
Fifteenth:  of  merchants,   1204,  p.   69;   of  personal  property,   1225, 

p.  159. 
Fifth:  of  Channel  Isles,  1203,  p.  63;  on  the  clergy  for  the  pope, 

1240,  p.  264. 
Fine   for  knights'   service:   meaning   of,   pp.   26,   324,   325;    general 

statement  concerning,  pp.  322-323. 
assessed  by  special  justices:  in  1201,  p.  44;  1202,  p.  53;  1203, 

p.  61. 

date  of  levy  of,  pp.  316,  324,  328. 
opposition  to,  pp.  323,  324; 
paid  by  bishops;  see  bishops, 
rate  of  the:  in  1201,  p.  39;  1202,  pp.  48,  49;  1203,  pp.  55,  57; 

1204,  pp.  65,  66;  1205,  pp.  71,  73;  1206,  p.  78;  1210,  p.  99; 
1229,  pp.  185,  187;  in  general,  pp.  326,  327,  328. 

two  forms  of:  in  1199,  p.  27;  1201,  p.  39;  1202,  p.  49;  1203,  p. 

57;  1204,  p.  66;  1205,  p.  73;  1206,  p.  79;  1229,  p.  187;  1242, 

pp.  228-230;  in  general,  pp.  323,  326,  328. 
incidence  of:  in  1201,  p.  43;  1203,  p.  60;  1204,  p.  66  note;  1205, 

p.  76;  1210,  p.  100;  1233,  pp.  206,  207;  1244,  p.  240;  1257, 

p.  286;  in  general,  pp.  331-332. 
Fines,  list  of:  under  Henry  II  and  Richard  I,  pp.  5,  26; 

in  1199,  p.  22;  1201,  p.  35;  1202,  p.  48;  1203,  p.  54;  1204,  p.  65; 

1205,  p.  70;  1206,  p.  77;  1209,  p.  95;  1210,  p.  98;  1211,  p.  363; 
1215-1217,  p.  121;  1224,  p.  151  note;  1229,  p.  187;  1233,  p. 
206;  1242,  p.  224;  1244,  p.  240;  1245,  p.  246;  1253,  p.  255; 
1257,  p.  286. 

401 


INDEX 

Fines  for  the  aid  of  1235,  p.  210;  paid  by  the  partisans  of  Simon  de 

Montfort,  1265,  p.  291. 
Fortieth,  the,  1201,  p.  45;  of  1232,  p.  199. 
Forty  days,  the,  pp.  245  note,  309-311. 
Gannoc,  scutage  of,  p.  244. 
Gascony,  expeditions  to;  see  Henry  III. 
Great    council:    representative    character    of    the,    pp.    369,    382-385, 


composition  of  the,  pp.  370-372,  377-379 ;  and  see  list  of  meetings ; 
corporate  action  of,  pp.  358,  360,  369,  382,  391;  and  see  list  of 

meetings;   dates   of  meeting,  p.  372;   discussion  in  the,  pp. 

372-375,    385;    length    of    sessions    of   the,    p.    376;    writ    of 

summons  to,  p.  370; 
list  of  meetings  mentioned:  1204,  p.  63;   1207,  p.  86;   1217,  pp. 

122,  125;  1220,  p.  130;  1221,  pp.  137,  139;  1222,  p.  141;  1224, 

p.  148;   1225,  pp.   159-161;  1229,  pp.   176,   181,   189;   1230,  p. 

191;   1231,  p.  192;  1232,  p.  200;  1235,  p.  208;  1237,  p.  214; 

1242,  pp.  224,  236;  1244-1245,  pp.  241,  242;  1246-1249,  pp.  249, 

250,  266,  267;  1252,  pp.  253,  269;   1253,  pp.  254,  270;   1254, 

pp.   261-263;    1255,   pp.   274,   275;    1256-1258,   pp.   277,   278; 

1264,  p.  290;  1266,  p.  292;  1269,  p.  295. 

Half  of  revenues  of  clergy  demanded  by  the  pope,  1246,  p.  267. 
Henry   III:   insufficient   income    and   loans:   in    1217,   pp.    121,    124; 

1220,  pp.  129,  130;  1221,  p.  138;  1224,  p.  159;  1231,  p.  197; 

1232,  p.  199;  1235,  p.  208;  1237,  p.  215;  1242,  p.  238;  1244- 

1245,   pp.   241,   246;    1247-1250,   pp.   249-250;    1253-1258,   pp. 

260,  279,  281,  282. 
and  Gascony:  sends  money  to,  in  1226-1227,  p.   168;  desires  to 

lead    expedition    to,    pp.    171,    172;    leads    expedition    to,    in 

1230,  p.  181;  in  1242,  p.  224;  in  1253,  p.  253;  expenses  in, 

in  1230,  p.  181;  in  1242,  p.  238;  in  1253,  p.  260; 
and  Sicilian  crown,  pp.  274^.; 
assumes  the  cross,  p.  268; 
causes  of  his  poverty,  p.  345;  of  his  conflict  with  the  barons, 

pp.  119,  345,  370; 

measures  to  restrict  his  expenditure,  in  1237,  p.  218; 
promises  that  aid  shall  not  form  a  precedent;  see  precedent. 
Herlot,  papal  delegate  to  England,  1257,  p.  278. 
Hidage;  see  carucage. 
Honors  in  hand,  scutage  and  fine  on;  in  1201,  pp.  39,  43;  1202,  p.  52; 

1203,   pp.   57,   60;    1206,  p.   79;    1211,  p.    104;    1224,   p.    152; 

in  general,  pp.  331-332. 

Hundredth,  on  the  clergy  for  the  pope,  1263,  p.  290. 
Increment  of  county  farm,  amount  of,  p.  15. 

402 


INDEX 

Indemnity  of  1217,  pp.  124,  125. 

Individual  consent  to  taxation:  in  1217,  p.  127;  in  1220,  pp.  131,  132; 

in  1222,  p.   141;  in  1224,  p.   156;  in  1225,  pp.   161,  162;  in 

1226,  p.  170;  in  1235,  p.  209;  in  general,  pp.  379  ff.,  386-388. 
Inquests:  of  1166,  p.  3;  1198,  p.  8;  1212,  p.  322;  1235,  pp.  211-212; 

1242,  pp.  233-234,  237,  353. 
Interdict,  tallage   for  the,  1214,  p.   117;  income  from  church  lands 

during  the,  pp.  106-108. 
Ireland,  expedition  to,   1210,  p.   96;   taxation  of,   1217,   p.    129;   in 

1220,   p.    135;    clergy,    1226,   p.    171;   in    1235-1237,    p.    219; 

from  clergy,  1242,  p.  238;  in  1253,  p.  260;  twentieth  for  the 

pope,  1241,  p.  265  note;  tenth,  1266,  p.  293. 
Jews,  tallages  of:  in  1210,  p.  105;  1220,  p.  208  note;  1224,  p.  163  note; 

1230,  p.  191;  1233,  p.  200;  1237,  p.  219;  1241,  p.  220;  1249, 

p.  250  note;  1256,  p.  284  note. 
John:  treaty  with  Philip  Augustus,  1200,  p.  32;  money  in  hand  in 

1206,  p.  82;  income  from  church  lands  during  the  interdict, 

pp.  106-108;  funds  in  1214,  p.  110  note;  royal  income  under, 

pp.  15,  16,  344. 

Jury,  a  royal  device  in  taxation,  p.  352. 
Knights;  see  lesser  tenants. 
Knights'  service:  fines  of  towns  for:  in  1224,  p.  149;  1231,  p.  198; 

1264,  p.  290; 
performed  by  rear-vassals:  in  1221,  p.  140;  1228,  p.  175;  1229- 

1230,  p.  195;  in  general,  p.  329; 
reduction  of:  in  1202,  p.  48  note;  1204,  p.  64  note;  1210,  p.  97; 

1211,  p.   101;   1213,  pp.  109-110;   1214,  p.   Ill;   1221,  p.  138; 

1223,  p.  146;  1224,  pp.  149-152;  1228,  p.  174;  1229-1230,  pp. 

182-183,  193;  1231,  p.  196;  1241,  p.  221;  1242,  p.  226;  1245, 

pp.  245-248;  1253,  p.  255;  1257,  pp.  284-285;  in  general,  pp. 

11,    302-304,    362-363;    causes    of    reduction,    pp.    307-309; 

unwillingness  to  perform,  in  1213-1214,  p.  113;  1242,  p.  225; 

1244,  p.  240;  1253,  pp.  253-254;  1254,  pp.  261-263;  1257,  p. 

284;  in  general,  pp.  307-308. 
Lambeth,  treaty  of,  1217,  p.  124. 
Lesser  tenants:  in  the  great  council:  in  1225,  p.  160;  1232,  p.  200; 

1235,  p.  208  note;  1237,  p.  214;  1254,  p.  261;  in  general,  pp. 

377  ff. 

rate  of  fines  on:  p.  328,  and  see  references  in  list  of  fines, 
service  of,  in  the  host:  p.  306,  and  see  references  to  host  in  list 

of  scutages. 
London,  tallage  on,  per  capita,  1226,  p.  172;  dispute  over  the  tallage 

of,  1255,  p.  283. 
Louis  of  France,  in  England,  pp.  121-125. 

403 


INDEX 

Magna    Carta:    provisions    concerning    taxation,    pp.    359  ff.;    these 

provisions  obeyed  under  Henry  III,  pp.  366-367; 
grievances  concerning  scutage  in,  pp.  10-12,  361  ff.; 
reduction  of  royal  income  resulting  from,  p.  119. 

Martin,  papal  delegate  to  England  to  collect  money,  1244,  pp.  265- 
266. 

Mercenaries,  use  of:  in  1199,  p.  21;  1201,  p.  35;  1202,  p.  46;  1203, 
p.  53;  1204,  p.  64;  1210,  p.  96;  1214,  p.  Ill;  1221,  p.  138; 
1225,  p.  168;  1230,  p.  182;  1233,  p.  206;  1242,  pp.  225,  227; 
1245,  pp.  244,  245;  1254,  p.  262;  in  general,  pp.  304-305;  311 
note  53. 

Modern  taxation,  origin  of,  p.  346. 

Moneyers,  tallage  of,  p.  289. 

Montgomery,  scutage  of,  1223,  p.  143. 

New  enfeoffment,  p.  3. 

Norwich,  bishop  of:  collector  of  papal  subsidies,  1246-1247,  pp. 
266,  267;  collector  of  the  tenth,  1254,  p.  271. 

Norwich  taxation,  pp.  272,  292,  294,  298  note. 

Old  enfeoffment,  p.  3. 

Otho,  papal  legate,  levies  taxes  on  the  clergy,  1238-1241,  pp. 
264-265. 

Ottobon,  papal  legate,  pp.  291  ff. 

Personal  property,  taxes  on:  assessment  and  collection,  pp.  352-356; 
change  in  the  character  of  taxation  in  the,  p.  351 ;  composi- 
tion for  the,  pp.  353,  355;  incidence  of,  pp.  351-353,  355- 
356;  number  of  men  paying  the,  p.  353;  occasion  for,  pp. 
347-348;  receipts  from,  pp.  354-356;  rights  of  barons 
protected  in  the,  pp.  205,  217,  352;  and  see  each  tax. 

Personal  property,  taxes  on,  list  of:  1166,  p.  6;  tenth,  for  the  crusade, 
1188,  p.  6;  fourth,  for  Richard's  ransom,  1194,  p.  6; 
levied  during  the  reigns  of  John  and  Henry  III:  fortieth, 
for  the  crusade,  1201,  p.  45;  aid  on  the  Channel 
Islands,  1201,  p.  45;  fifth  on  the  Channel  Islands,  1203,  p. 
63;  seventh,  fine  for  desertion,  1203,  p.  62;  thirteenth,  1207, 
p.  84;  twentieth,  on  the  clergy,  1216,  p.  121;  fifteenth,  1225, 
p.  159;  sixteenth  on  the  clergy,  1226,  p.  169;  tenth  on  the 
clergy,  1229,  papal,  p.  176;  fortieth,  1232,  p.  199;  thirtieth, 
1237,  p.  214;  thirtieth,  papal,  on  the  clergy,  1238,  p.  264; 
fifth,  papal,  on  the  clergy,  1240,  p.  264;  twentieth,  papal, 
on  the  clergy,  1246,  p.  265;  papal  levies  of  1247,  on  the 
clergy,  p.  267;  twenty-third,  1250,  p.  250;  eightieth,  on  the 
clergy,  1250,  p.  268;  twentieth,  on  the  clergy,  1252,  p.  268; 
tenth,  for  five  years,  1253,  on  the  clergy,  pp.  254,  263; 
hundredth,  papal,  on  the  clergy,  1263,  p.  290;  tenth,  on  the 
clergy,  1264,  p.  290;  tenth,  for  three  years,  1266,  on  the 

404 


INDEX 

clergy,  p.  291;  twentieth,  on  the  clergy,  for  the  Disinherited, 
1268,  p.  294;  twentieth,  for  the  crusade,  1269,  p.  295. 
Poll  tax  of  1222,  p.  141. 

Precedent,  letters  patent  that  taxes  shall  not  form  a:  in  1224,  to 
clergy,  p.  157;  in  1227,  to  the  beneficed  clergy,  p.  171;  in 
1229,  to  the  bishops,  p.  189;  1231,  to  clergy,  p.  192;  1235,  to 
clergy,  p.  209;  1237,  to  all  tenants,  p.  219;  1242,  to  bishops, 
p.  236;  tax  on  the  clergy  of  1269,  not  to  be  a,  pp.  296,  297. 
Proficuum,  amount  of,  p.  15. 

Quota,  service  by;  see  knights'  service,  reduction. 
Revenue,  king's:  classification  of,  p.  1;  ordinary  revenue  insufficient, 
p.  2;  amount  of  ordinary  revenue  under  John,  p.  16;  total 
revenue    in    1242,    pp.    238-239;    in    1253,    pp.    260,    261;    in 
general,  under  John  and  Henry  III,  pp.  344,  345. 
Richard  I,  taxation  for  the  ransom  of,  p.  6. 

Richard,  earl  of  Cornwall:  in  Gascony,  1226,  p.  168;  receives  money 
from  Henry  III,  p.  219;  loans  to  Henry  III,  pp.  246,  249, 
282;  accompanies  Henry  III  to  Gascony,  1242,  p.  227; 
absent  from  the  great  council,  p.  372. 

Richard  Marshal,  fines  for  campaign  against,  1233,  p.  206. 
Rosso,  Peter,  papal  delegate  to  England,  p.  265. 
Rostand,  sent  to  England  to  assess  the  tenth,  pp.  275  ff. 
Round:  estimate  of  the  servitium  debitum,  pp.  4,  300. 
Saladin  tithe;  see  tenth  of  1188. 
Scotland,  scutage  of,  1209-1211,  p.  94. 

Scutage:  abuses  of,  under  John,  pp.  361-366;  amount  of,  paid,  p.  338; 
assessment  and  collection,  pp.  335-338,  and  see  each  scutage; 
authority  for  the  levy  of:  in  1204,  p.  64;  in  1221,  p.  139;  1224, 
p.  151;  1229,  p.  186;  1230,  p.  191;  1231,  p.  197;  1233,  p.  206; 
1242,  pp.  235-236;  in  general,  pp.  338-340. 
character  of,  pp.  10-13,  317-321,  332-334. 
date  of  levy  of,  p.  316;  see  each  scutage. 
delays  in  paying,  p.  338; 
description  of  account  of,  in  the  Pipe  Roll,  pp.  17-18,  313-314; 

more  complete  form  of  account  of,  in  1211,  p.  104. 
incidence  of,  pp.  329,  330,  and  see  each  scutage. 
incomplete  accounts  of,  in  1204,  p.  314  note;  1210,  p.  98;  1242, 

p.  228; 

in  Magna  Carta,  p.  359; 
levies  included  under,  p.  359; 
number  of   fees   paying,   in   the  thirteenth  century;   in   1217,  p. 

127;  1245,  p.  243;  1253,  p.  257;  also,  pp.  4,  300-302,  331. 
number  of  greater  tenants  paying,  or  fine,  pp.  302,  306,  and  see 
each  scutage; 

405 


INDEX 

paid   and   service   rendered:  in   1199,   pp.   23,  24;    1201,  p.   38; 

1203,  p.  56;  1214,  p.  115;  in  general,  p.  322; 
opposition  to:  1214,  pp.  112-114;  1229,  of  bishops,  p.  189;  1230, 

of  clergy,  p.  192;  in  general,  pp.  333-334,  361  ff. 
pardoned  in  part:  in  1201,  p.  38;  1223,  pp.  145,  146; 
points  discussed  in  connection  with  each,  p.  10. 
rate  of:  under  Henry  II,  p.  4;  in  1210,  p.  98;  in  general,  pp. 

316-317; 
the  entire  composition  for  service,  pp.  17,  317-322,  328,  and  see 

each  scutage; 
under  Henry  III,  pp.  366-367;  and  fine  under  Henry  III,  pp. 

327-329. 
Scutages,  list  of,  levied  by  John:  1199,  p.  22;  1201,  p.  34;  1202,  p.  46; 

1203,   p.   53;    1204,  p.   63;    1205,   p.   69;    1206,   p.   77;    1209, 

Scotland,  p.  94;   1210,  Ireland,  p.  96;   1211,  Wales,  p.   101; 

1214,  Poitou,  p.  109; 
levied  by  Henry  III:  1221,  Biham,  p.  136;  1223,  Montgomery, 

p.   143;   1224,   Bedford,  p.   148;   1228,   Kerry,  p.   173;    1230, 

Brittany,  p.  180;  1231,  Poitou,  p.  191;  1232,  Elveyn,  p.  195; 

1242,  Gascony,  p.  224;   1246,  Gannoc,  p.  244;   1258,  \Vales, 

p.  284. 
Scutagio  habendo,  the  writ  de,  examples  of,  pp.  140,  147,  152,  230, 

318,  335. 
Service  exempted  from  scutage  and  fine,  pp.  317,  318,  328,  329,  and 

see  each  scutage;  not  commuted  at  the  will  of  the  tenant, 

p.  312. 

Servitium  debitum,  amount  of,  pp.  3,  4,  300. 
Seventh,  1203,  pp.  54,  62. 
Sheriff,  duties  of,  in  connection  with  scutage,  pp.  335-338;  tallage, 

p.  342;  taxes  on  personal  property  and  carucages,  p.  352; 

and  see  each  tax. 

Sicilian  crown,  taxation  for  the,  pp.  274  if. 
Sixteenth  on  the  beneficed  clergy,  1226,  pp.  169  ff. 
Sub-infeudation,  extent  of,  p.  308. 
Tallage:  assessment  and  collection,  pp.  342-343,  and  see  each  tallage; 

character  of,  p.  10;  frequency  of,  p.  340;  levied  in  connection 

with  aids,  p.  340;  relation  of,  to  scutage,  p.  340;  restrained 

in  amount,  pp.  341-342; 
TaUages,  list  of,  under  John  and  Henry  III:  1199,  p.  31;  1201,  p.  45; 

1202,  p.  47;  1203,  pp.  54,  61;  1204,  p.  68;  1205,  p.  76;  1206, 

p.  82;  1210,  p.  100;  1214,  p.  116;  1217,  p.  128;  1223,  p.  147; 

1226,  p.  172;  1230,  p.  190;  1234,  p.  207;  1235,  p.  213;  1238, 

p.  219;  1241,  p.  220;  1242,  p.  227  note;  1245,  p.  249;   1249, 

p.  250;  1251,  p.  250;  1253,  aid  on  the  towns,  p.  256;   1255, 

p.  283;  1260,  p.  289;  1268,  p.  294;  1269,  p.  297. 

406 


INDEX 

Tenants,  division  into  greater  and  lesser,  p.  382;  continue  to  serve 
with  the  host,  pp.  305-306;  number  of  greater  tenants  who 
compound  for  knights'  service,  pp.  302,  306,  and  see  each 
scutage. 

Tenth  of  personal  property,  of  1188,  p.  6;  1229,  p.  176;  1253,  pp.  254, 
263;  1264,  p.  290;  1266,  p.  291. 

Third  of  personal  property,  from  the  clergy  by  the  pope,  1247,  p.  267. 

Thirteenth  of  personal  property,  1207,  p.  84. 

Thirtieth,  1237,  p.  214;  for  the  pope,  1238,  p.  264. 

Twentieth  of  personal  property,  1216,  p.  121;  1246,  p.  265;  1247,  p. 
267;  1252,  p.  268;  1268,  p.  294;  1269,  p.  295. 

Twenty-third,  1250,  p.  250. 

Wages  of  knights,  pp.  5,  309. 

Wales,  scutage  of,  1211,  p.  101;  1258,  p.  284. 

Welsh,  expedition  against  the,  1241,  p.  220. 


407 


University  of  California 

SOUTHERN  REGIONAL  LIBRARY  FACILITY 

305  De  Neve  Drive  -  Parking  Lot  17  •  Box  951388 

LOS  ANGELES,  CALIFORNIA  90095-1388 

Return  this  material  to  the  library  from  which  it  was  borrowed. 


CAYLORO 

PRINTED  IN  U.S.A. 

